UNIVERSITY OF BUEA

FACULTY OF SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

MARKETS AND MARKET CHAIN ANALYSIS FOR ERU

(Gnetum spp.) IN SOUTH WEST AND LITTORAL REGIONS

OF CAMEROON

BY

Ndumbe Njie Louis BSc. (Hons) Environmental

Science

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Science of the University

of Buea in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Award of the Degree of Master of

Science (M.Sc.) in Natural Resources

and Environmental

Management

July 2010

ii

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to the Almighty God who gave me the ability to carryout this

project. To my late father Njie Mojemba Maximillian I and my beloved little son Njie

Mojemba Maximillian II.

iii

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the following people: Dr A. F. Nkwatoh, of the University of Buea, for

his supervision and guidance; Verina Ingram, of CIFOR, for her immense technical

guidance, supervision and support; Abdon Awono, of CIFOR, for guidance and

comments; Jolien Schure, of CIFOR, for her comments and field collaboration.

I also wish to thank the following organisations: Food and Agricultural Organisation of

the United Nations (FAO), the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), the

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and the Commission des Forets d‟Afrique

Centrale (COMIFAC) for the opportunity to work within their framework and for the

team spirit and support.

I am also very grateful to the following collaborators: Ewane Marcus of University of

Buea; Ghislaine Bongers of Wageningen University, The Netherlands and Georges

Nlend of University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland for their collaboration in the field.

Thanks also to Agbor Demian of Mamfe.

Special thanks go to Dr. Ousseynou Ndoye, Armand Assend Ze, Irine Ako and Daniel

Knoop of the FAO for their comments and orientation before starting this work and

particularly to all those actors who participated in the interviews.

v

ABSTRACT

„Gnetum‟ (Gnetum africanum and Gnetum buchholzianum) is a leafy vine found in

Central African tropical humid forests. The leaves are harvested and traded principally

as a vegetable in Cameroon and neighbouring Nigeria. Manyu, Kupe-Manengouba and

Ndian divisions in the Southwest and Mungo in Littoral were selected as important

production areas where little data exists. Participatory rural appraisal tools were used to

gather information from producers, retailers, exporters, middlemen and restaurants in

the divisions and markets in Cameroon and Nigeria. Seven different trading channels

exist from the 2 regions, employing an estimated 1895 people (759 producers, 60

traders, 138 exporters, 141 importers, 267 retailers and 330 in support services).

Gnetum contributes up to 62% of producer‟s income, with an annual average profit of

598,729 FCFA. It provides up to 75% of retailer‟s and 58% of exporter‟s incomes,

giving an average exporter at Idenau an annual average profit of 481,708,750 FCFA.

The better organised Nigerian wholesalers average profit is almost double their

Cameroonian counterparts. Processing is generally simple and does not add significant

value or reduce perishability greatly. Whilst a regulatory framework for Gnetum exists

as Special Forestry Product, the majority of respondents traded without permits.

Increasing quantities harvested, combined with a lack of regulatory or customary

control of harvest coupled with no enforcement of permits, a very low level of

domestication and increasing consumer demand have led to an unsustainable trade

situation, indicated by a reduction from 336 tonnes from 2007 to 2008.

Correspondingly, the price has increased by 100 CFA per kg on average from 2007-

2009. Recommendations include linking actors in the Cameroon chains; domestication

programs to increase and more effective and enforceable regulatory and customary

control measures to allow this highly profitable trade and important income generator

to continue in the long term.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. ii

CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iv

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ vi

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... x

LIST OF PLATES ........................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................... xii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Problem statement ....................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Objectives of the study................................................................................................ 4

1.4 Scope of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Limitations and delimitations of the study .................................................................. 5

1.6 Hypothesis................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of Concepts ................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Value Chain Analysis (VCA) Approach................................................................... 15

2.3 The sustainable livelihoods (SL) approach ............................................................... 17

2.4 Identification of Species .......................................................................................... 18

2.5 Nutritional and medicinal value ................................................................................ 21

2.6 Gnetum trade in Cameroon ....................................................................................... 22

vii

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 29

3.2 Sampling Methods .................................................................................................... 41

3.3 Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 45

3.4 Analytical procedure ................................................................................................. 47

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

4.1 Gnetum species ......................................................................................................... 49

4.2 Gnetum actors and market channels ......................................................................... 50

4.3 Producer sources of household Income .................................................................... 51

4.4 Traders ...................................................................................................................... 52

4.5 Managers ................................................................................................................... 52

4.6 Retailers .................................................................................................................... 53

4.7 Processors ................................................................................................................. 53

4.8 Restaurants ................................................................................................................ 54

4.9 Exporters ................................................................................................................... 54

4.10 Nigerian importers and retailers .............................................................................. 55

4.11 Support actors ......................................................................................................... 55

4.12 Environmental Sustainability .................................................................................. 56

4.13 Production ............................................................................................................... 58

4.14 Quantities Sold, Traded and Exported .................................................................... 59

4.15 Actors‟ profit margins ............................................................................................. 60

4.16 Nigerian Markets Buying and Selling Prices .......................................................... 63

4.17 Average Profit per Nigerian Importer ..................................................................... 63

4.18 Comparison of profit margins ................................................................................. 64

4.19 Test of Hypothesis .................................................................................................. 64

4.20 Constraints faced by main actors in Cameroon ...................................................... 64

viii

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Discussion……………………………………………… ........ …………………… 67

5.2 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 73

5.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 76

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 80

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 89

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Characteristics distinguishing Gnetum africanum and Gnetum

Buchholzianum ................................................................................................. 20

Table 2.2: Composition of Gnetum leaves in micro and macro elements ...................... 20

Table 2.3: Composition of Gnetum leaves in Essential and Non essential Amino acid.. 21

Table 3.1: Population statistics of study area.................................................................. 33

Table 4.1: Channels and actors in the Gnetum market chain ......................................... 51

Table 4.2: Producers sources of household income ....................................................... 51

Table 4.3: Showing change in forest cover during the last decade ................................. 57

Table 4.4: Method of gnetum collection and sustainability ............................................ 57

Table 4.5: Mean quantities of gnetum exported from the South-west region in 2008.... 60

Table 4.6: Mean selling price of gnetum per village 2008 ............................................. 60

Table 4.7: Traders average profit per kg sold and profit per annum ............................. 62

Table 4.8: Constraints faced by producers in the gnetum chain .........................................65

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Map of study area villages and markets in Cameroon ............................... 29

Figure 3.2: Map of study area Nigerian markets for Cameroonian Gnetum ............... 30

Figure 3.3: Map of study sites in the Southwest and Littoral regions .......................... 31

Figure 4.1: Annual production of Gnetum per village .................................................. 58

Figure 4.2: Average production per harvester (kg) per region 2007-2009 ................... 59

Figure 4.3: Distribution of Gnetum produced by producers ........................................ 59

Figure 4.4: Producers annual average profit variation between 2007 and 2009 ........... 61

Figure 4.5: Exporters total profits per market ............................................................... 62

Figure 4.6: Buying and Selling prices per Kg of Gnetum across Nigerian Markets .... 63

Figure 4.7: Average profit per Nigerian Importer from 2007-2009 .............................. 63

Figure 4.8: Comparison of Average profit margins per Kg of gnetum between

Cameroonian and Nigerian wholesalers ...................................................... 64

xi

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Gnetum buchholziana leaves ............................................................................. 49

Plate 2: Gnetum africanum leaves .................................................................................. 50

Plate 3: Processed dried gnetum,CENDEP ..................................................................... 54

Plate 4: Loaders & offloaders, Idenau ............................................................................ 56

Plate 5: CENDEP gnetum demonstration farm ............................................................... 58

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ASOFAD

BEAC

CBO

CDC

CENDEP

CEREP

CFCA

CIFOR

CIG

CITES

COMIFAC

COOPEC

DED

FAO

FCFA

GFW

CIG

ICRAF

IUCN

kg

km

Association of Afang Dealers of Nigeria

Banque des Etat d‟Afrique Central

Community-Based Organisations

Cameroon Development Corporation

Centre for Nursery Development and Gnetum Propagation

Centre pour la Protection Durable de L‟Environnement au Cameroun

Central African Francs

Centre for International Forestry Research

Common Initiative Group

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora

Commission des Forêts d‟Afrique Centrale

Coopérative d‟Epargne et de Crédit

Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst (German Development Service)

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

Franc de la Communauté Financière Africaine

Global Forest Watch

Common Initiative Group

World Agroforestry Centre

World Conservation Union

Kilogramme

Kilometre

xiii

MDG

MINADER

MINEF

MINFOF

MISPEG

NGO

PSRF

UNO

SME

SMFE

NTFP

SNV

WCED

WRI

WWF

Millennium Development Goals

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife

Manyu Indigenous Spice Processing Ekemco Group

Non Governmental Organisation

Programme de Sécurisation de Recette Forestier

United Nation Organisation

Small and Medium Enterprises

Small and Medium Forest Enterprises

Non-Timber-Forest-Products

Netherlands Development Organisation

World Commission on Environment and Development

World Resource Institute

World Wide Fund for Nature

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The forests in the humid lowlands of Cameroon produce timber, wildlife and other

forest products. These other forest products are commonly referred to as non-timber

forest products (NTFPs) (Jimmy, 2007). Non timber forest products are defined as

goods of biological origin other than wood, derived from forests, other wooded lands

and trees outside the forest (FAO, 2001). These forest resources contribute to the

overall economy of various forest zones in many ways such as through employment,

values generated through the processing and marketing of the forest products, energy

and trade (FAO, 2007). CERUT-AIDEnvironment (1999) put it that in 1998, the NTFP

sector in South West and North West Regions of Cameroon contributed US$19 billion

to national economy. Tropical forests containing NTFPs are however, being lost at an

increasing rate in Africa through timber exploitation, conversion into agricultural land

and other development activities. Cameroon is no exception with a net deforestation

rate of 0.14% and an annual degradation rate of its forest of 0.01% between 1990

and 2000 (Cerutti, 2009, De Wasseige et al., 2009). There is a debate and some

evidence of the potential of NTFPs to alleviate poverty and contribute to sustainable

forest management. FAO (2007) puts it that in 2004, these forest products (NTFPs) had

a value of US$327 billion.

FAO (2007) notes that a problem in assessing the socio-economic significance of the

forest sector in Africa, is the scarcity of data on production and employment in the

informal sector. Micro level studies suggest that the informal sector is predominant, but

national statistics on income and employment emphasize the formal sector (FAO 2007:

2

Ingram 2009). A significant share of the harvest and trade of NTFPs take place in the

informal sector, and thus no national statistics are available.

Gnetum africanum Welw. and Gnetum buchholzianum Engl. are evergreen, leafy vines

that grow across the Congo Basin in forest openings, secondary forest, fallow

farmlands and, at times, in active mixed-crop farm holdings (Clark and Sunderland,

2004). Gnetum spp. are ranked among the main non-timber forest products in terms of

their high economic importance in Central and West Africa (FAO, 2001). In Cameroon

especially, the vine has several roles in farmers‟ livelihoods (Ndoye and Awono,

2007).It was estimated that 600 tonnes a year leave from the port of Idenau alone in the

South West region in 1993 with a local market value of 1,800,000,000 FCFA (Bokwe

and Ngatoum, 1994 as cited by Shiembo, 1999). This large volume of trade offers

valuable employment to many young people and women in Cameroon and surrounding

countries. Local uses of Gnetum for its medicinal and nutritional values have also been

supported by scientific study (Abia et al. 2007; Schippers 2004; Schippers and Besong,

2004). Gnetum is a significant source of protein (16.5% dry wt.), Carbohydrate (70.6%

dry wt.), essential amino acids (Isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine,

threonine, tryptophan and valine), non essential amino acids (aspartic acid, serine,

glutamic acid, proline, glycine, alanine, cysteine, tyrosine histidine and arginine) and

mineral constituents i.e. macro and micro-elements (7.0% dry wt.). Medicinally, the

leaf of G. africanum is used in the treatment of an enlarged spleen, sore throats and as a

cathartic in Nigeria (Burkill, 1994 as cited by Shiembo 1995). In Ubangi (DR Congo),

it is used to treat nausea and is considered to be an antidote to some forms of poison

(Burkill, 1994 cited by Shiembo 1995). In Congo-Brazzaville, the leaves of both

species are used as a dressing for warts and boils and a tisane of the cut-up stem is

taken to reduce the pain of childbirth (Shiembo 1995). In West Africa chopped leaves

3

are used as a dressing on furuncles to hasten maturation. G. africanum is also reported

to be used for medicinal purposes in Mozambique (Shiembo 1995). Culturally, the

leaves form part of the diets of almost all of the societal strata in Central Africa and

Nigeria. In the Congo Gnetum consumption has been evaluated at 2g/capita. Women

play a great role in the gathering and selling of the much relished leaves all year round.

The gnetum dish has significant cultural value in traditional ceremonies like marriages,

funeral and commemoration ceremonies (Mialoundama, 1993).

1.2 Problem Statement

Gnetum africanum was declared an endangered species by the Ministry of Environment

and Forestry (MINEF) in 1995 (Fondoun and Tiki-Manga, 2000). However since 1995

no action to protect the species has taken place and although it is listed as a Special

Forestry Product, no particular protection measures other than a quota which is not

based on any inventory, have been put in place. In the meantime, however, local and

regional markets have grown, especially in the South-West region and Nigeria (Ndoye

and Awono, 2007). To meet the high demand, the search for Gnetum has increasingly

been extended to more remote parts of Cameroon, such that it is now difficult to find

either species in the forest of the South-West region where they were previously

abundant (Shiembo, 1999). Gnetum exploitation and environmental degradation is

linked to the constant unsustainable harvesting of Gnetum from the wild, which occurs

frequently (Laird et al. 2009; Shiembo 1998; Tekwe et al. 2003; Tieguhong et al.

2009). Practices are destructive when the shade cover or support base is cut down. Such

practices and high levels of exploitation does not only risk the extinction of the Gnetum

species itself but other valuable genetic and forest resources (Besong et al., 2002).

Natural regeneration is commonly reported as poor with a diminishing resource base,

due to unsustainable harvest techniques and over-harvesting (Lingondo et al., 2006;

4

Fondoun and Tiki-Manga, 2000; Shiembo, 1999; Tanda, 2009). The “real” value of

gnetum both economically, environmentally and socially has not yet been fully

elaborated. Statistical data on NTFPs in general are incomplete, scattered or not

comparable and at national level do not yet provide a solid base for decision making

(Vantomme, 2003). Unless their economic, socio-cultural and environmental value is

adequately measured; their value and performance cannot be known, managed or

governed. These dimensions are also very important when seeking poverty reduction

and a sustainable livelihood improvement (Ingram and Bongers, 2009).

1.3 Objectives of Study

The general objective of this study is to evaluate the economic, socio-cultural and

environmental value of Gnetum in the South West and Littoral Regions of Cameroon.

More specifically, the study:

1. Identified the different types of Gnetum spp. produced and marketed in the

South West and Littoral Regions;

2. Identified the different actors and trade channels; the organization and conduct

of the gnetum market chain in the study area;

3. Evaluated the quantity of gnetum produced and sold by actors annually in the

study area and environmental sustainability;

4. Estimated the profit and market margins of main actors in the chain and the

contribution of gnetum to their incomes;

5. Identified the major constraints faced by actors.

1.4 Scope of the Study

The study area is limited to the four sub-divisions of the Manyu division, Mamfe

Central, Eyumojock, Akwaya and Upper Bayang, the Nguti sub-division of the Kupe

Muanenguba division, the Bamusso sub-division of the Ndian division in the South

5

West Region and the Mungo division of the Littoral Region. The study area extended to

the Cross River and Akwa-Ibom states of Nigeria where three markets- Oron, Calabar

and Ikom were examined for the purpose of comparing the organization, conduct and

performance of the Nigeria gnetum market with that in Cameroon.

1.5 Limitations and delimitations of the study

It was difficult to administer questionnaires in Nigerian markets because of the busy

nature of the market participants. Hence the researcher had to resort to Semi-structured

interviews using an interview guide.

Farmers in the gnetum production zones, traders and exporters do not keep written

records and as such most of the information was estimates.

In the villages, particularly during peak periods of gnetum collection, farmers travel to

the forest and remain there for days.

1.6 Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in the quantity of gnetum produced by producers in

the Manyu division of the South West Region and the Moungo division of the Littoral

Region.

6

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of Concepts

2.1.1 Market

Martin et al. (1987) define a market as the organised action between potential buyers

(market demand) and potential sellers (market supply) that enables them to trade. A

market is any established operating means or exchange for business dealings between

buyers and sellers. As opposed to simple selling, a market implies trade that is transacted

with some regularity and regulation, and in which a certain amount of competition is

involved. Markets are characterised by buyers who demand goods or resources that

produce them and suppliers who make products or resources available if the price is right.

In this wise, Ruiz Pérez et al. (2000) identifies different types of NTFP markets in

Southern Cameroon. The first category (called Type I) consists of “small, local markets

with a high level of self-sufficiency that act as local exchange places as well as

suppliers of the regional and national markets”. This category includes Mabeta,

Makénéné Est and Mile 4 in which most sellers are producers and most buyers are

consumers. The second category of markets (Type II) consists of a “group of medium-

sized markets of regional importance, with a medium level of self-sufficiency, acting as

secondary nodes for the small local markets and as intermediate assembly points for the

large urban markets” (Ruiz Pérez et al., 2000). This category includes Limbe,

Makénéné Centre (wholesale), Ebolowa, Mokolo and Obala . The third category (Type

III) of “large urban markets whose size and spread of linkages give them a national

projection and which are characterised by a weak degree of self-sufficiency” includes

Mfoundi market in the capital, Yaoundé (Ruiz Pérez et al., 2000).

7

2.1.2 Marketing:

Marketing is basically a technology that is at the disposal of producers to identify

market opportunities in the form of market needs and wants, analyze competition, and

develop appropriate approaches to reach the markets and to make profit. It uses a

mixture of basic factors comprising products, channels of distribution, promotion and

price by which it satisfies the needs and wants of the customers in the markets.

Marketing operates in an environment that is created by economic, social, cultural,

technological, political, regulatory, legal, institutional and infrastructural factors, all of

which are beyond the control of the individual operators doing marketing (Lintu, 1995

as quoted by Tieguhong and Ndoye, 2004).

2.1.3 Processing

Some NWFPs are eaten raw; some go through simple processing steps while others go

through sophisticated processing before reaching the end user. The objective of

processing NWFPs may be to extend shelf life, for value adding and/or for better

hygiene (De Silva and Atal, 1995 as cited by Tieguhong and Ndoye, 2004). Processing

provides the physical characteristics of the goods while marketing adds to it all the

necessary services and other immaterial features to make it a complete product for

satisfying the values sought in the market (Lintu, 1995 as cited by Tieguhong and

Ndoye, 2004). These may be achieved through simple cleaning of harvested materials,

providing proper storage conditions, packaging, grading and labeling of products.

Increasing sophistication in processing (secondary and further processing) can follow

primary processing depending on the type of product, available financial resources,

available technology, available trained manpower and a ready market for the finished

products. Out of the five factors mentioned, most countries in Africa lack the latter four

8

for NWFPs that require sophisticated processing such as the extraction of active

ingredients from medicinal plants for drug formulations (Tieguhong and Ndoye, 2004).

2.1.4 Market Chain

A product‟s value can change dramatically from the moment it is harvested in the

forest, to the time when it is finally used or consumed. NTFPs may be harvested from

one source and be consumed by the same person at the same location, but equally

maybe exchanged or traded and processed, traded and/or consumed in another location

and known as a different product. This range of activities through which a product

passes is known as a market or value chain, as often (but not always), the economic and

financial value of a product changes and increases once it is harvested, processed or

transformed and retailed (Ingram and Bongers 2009). When NTFPs move from

subsistence use to commercialization, the economic and social livelihoods of

harvesters, producers, processors, urban traders and consumers become interlinked

through demand and supply interactions that can lead to unsustainable exploitation and

concerns about biodiversity conservation and forest degradation. Due to these

interactions, this study has taken a market chain approach to valuation. A method for

market chain valuation however also needs to go beyond a classic economic „stand-

alone‟ value chain approach, alleviation from household and community up to a

national and international level, and contribute to the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs), by taking into account the actual value of the NTFP market chains in policies

related to forest management, conservation, development, trade reduction and food

security (Baker, 2000; Thornber et al., 2001; Wong, 2003 as cited by Ingram and

Bongers, 2009). Knowledge about the real value of NTFP market chains can also be

used to facilitate resource allocation decisions related to the areas where the NTFPs are

found (Tewari, 2000 as cited by Ingram and Bongers, 2009).

9

2.1.5 Poverty

A traditional definition of poverty is materialistic, focusing on a lack of income and

material possessions. The concept has been extended to include less tangible and

nonmaterial aspects of well-being, like health, education, nutrition, security and

empowerment. The „Sustainable Livelihoods Approach‟, looks at factors that matter for

poor people and the means for achieving these things. The term ‘poverty reduction’

indicates a situation where people become measurably better off over time, in absolute

or relative terms - when they reach above a predefined poverty line. „Poverty

prevention’ refers to the role of forests in helping people to survive and maintain a

minimum standard of living – the insurance and gap filling functions of forests in

cushioning poverty, without lifting people above a poverty line. ‘Poverty alleviation’

encompasses both terms (Angelsen et al., 2003). Poverty traps are activities that

provide short-term security but constrain households in the long-term (Ingram and

Bongers, 2009).

2.1.6 Livelihoods

This is the various ways through which people earn their living or the money they need

to pay for basic necessities like food, clothing, and a place to live etc. A holistic view

of NTFP market chain valuation can provide insight on links between NTFP based

activities and their contribution to livelihoods and therefore an understanding of the

importance of NTFPs to populations. This in turn can guide on their potential

development, governance and management. Knowing the „real‟ value of NTFP market

chains is important to address governance issues in market chains. The governance

arrangements in a market chain have critical implications for how values are

determined and benefits are distributed in market chains (Arnold and Pérez, 2001;

Kusters, Achdiawan et al., 2006 as cited by Ingram and Bongers 2009). Variables that

10

play a large role in determining how global value chains are governed and change

include the complexity of transactions, the ability of actors to codify transactions and

the capabilities in the supply-base, access to information and exchange methods,

market structure, transparency and entry barriers to markets, at individual, household

and community level. Understanding how these variables interacts and the power plays

in chains can facilitate those active in NTFP market chains to improve their position,

income generation and resource management. It can aid regulators and development

organizations by indicating the range of values NTFP markets have and by providing a

systemized method for analyzing these indicators and their impacts (Ingram and

Bongers, 2009).

2.1.7 Governance

The governance of value chains refers to how control is exercised within the chain,

reflecting the relationships between different actors. It plays an important role in

determining the sustainability of the overall chain and the equitability of benefit

distribution, and can also influence how production capacities are upgraded (Marshal et

al., 2006). In Global Value Chains (GVC) analysis, governance is the process by which

the so-called „lead firms‟ organize activities with the purpose of achieving a certain

functional division of labour along a value chain – resulting in specific allocation of

resources and distributions of gains. It involves the definition of the terms of chain

membership, the related incorporation/exclusion of other actors, and the re-allocation

of value-adding activities (Kaplinsky, 2000).

Governance within global value chains has been identified as an important determinant

of how value is controlled and distributed along a value chain and how it ultimately

affects livelihoods (Marshall et al., 2003; Velde et al., 2004; Kusters et al., 2006;

Schreckenberg et al., 2006; Belcher et al., 2007). The level and type of governance

11

affects costs. Highly governed but also competitive chains have been shown to be very

successful in reducing production costs, increasing quality and increasing production

speed and also provide information on how to improve skills and production flows.

Particular determinants include how access to a market is governed to determine how,

where and when actors participate in a value chain, how and where funnels for technical

assistance enter the chain and who and which stages of value chains are promoted for

policy initiatives (Humphrey et al., 2001; Bennett, 2006; Velde et al., 2006; Keane,

2008; Ntsama, 2008; Purnomo et al., 2009).

2.1.8 Sustainability

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) defined

sustainable development as: “paths of human progress, which meet the needs and

aspiration of the present generation without compromising the ability of the future

generations to meet their needs”. Sustainability could be viewed as « a relationship

between human economic systems and larger dynamic, but normally slower-changing

ecological systems in which (i) human life can continue indefinitely, (ii) human

individuals can flourish, and (iii) human cultures can develop, but in which, effects of

human activities remain within bounds so as not to destroy the diversity, complexity,

and function of the ecological life-support system. The term sustainability evokes the

image of an economic system able to evolve without deterioration from its current state

into the long-term future, being « in balance with nature ». the term has become a

flagship for the diffuse set of concerns to reconcile tensions between exploitation of the

potentials of nature, the pursuit of human wellbeing and a cumulative undermining

through resource depletion and ecological disruption, of the basis of collective welfare

and of human as well as non-human life on earth.

12

The United Nation Indicators for sustainable Development (ISD) were developed after

the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Conference on Sustainable Development. The UN conference

document comprised of chapters that can be grouped into four categories : (a) Social

aspect of sustainable development (b) Economic aspects of sustainable development (c)

Environmental aspects of sustainable development and (d) Institutional aspects of

sustainable development.

2.1.9 Valuation

The adage” You can't manage what you don't measure‟‟ reflects a line of thought that

unless something is measured its value and performance cannot be known, managed or

governed. These concepts are critical to this study and deserve clarification. The verb

measure means "to ascertain the measurements of" and measurement means „‟the

figure, extent, or amount obtained by measuring". The noun benchmark means "a

standard by which others may be measured" (Ingram and Bongers 2009). Although

measurement may distort that which it measures and may not perfectly reflect a desired

outcome, measurements are one way of assessing value. The term value is from the

Latin valere; to be of worth or to be strong. It encompasses several meanings which are

relevant for this study (Ingram and Bongers 2009):

1. A fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something

exchanged.

2. The monetary worth of something: Market price

3. relative worth, utility, or importance <e.g. a good value at the price>

4. A numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or

measurement

5. Something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable < e.g.

material values or human values >.

13

An important starting point in a valuation is a standardised inventory or survey

methodology to provide the benchmark. This provides a baseline or snapshot of the

status of the resource at a particular point in time. Several methods have been

developed to do this, particularly focusing on survey methods that include the

participation of local forest–based communities and users (Baker, 2000; ETFRN, 2000;

Lynch, 2004 as cited by Ingram and Bongers, 2009). But dominant methods are not yet

universally accepted or used (Scoones, 1998; Baker, 2000; Krantz, 2001; Wong et al.,

2001; Wong, 2003; Wong, 2003 as cited by Ingram and Bongers, 2009). Many NTFP

valuations to date lack quantitative data (Jensen, 2007). This is relevant given the

global diversity of NTFPs and their uses, combined with the need for comparable and

generalized results applicable across ecosystems, cultures regions and countries

(Lubowski et al., 1993; Niemeijer et al., 1998; Pérez and Byron, 1999; Tewari, 2000;

Newton et al., 2003 as cited by Ingram and Bongers, 2009). A standardized method for

forest product valuations therefore would facilitate comparisons of different NTFPs,

and should include all aspects related to the value of NTFPs.

2.1.10 Household NTFPs Utilization Strategies

Accumulation or specialised strategy: Households endeavour to increase the stock of

assets and income flows from forest products. The objective of this strategy is to

increase income and it often involves specialisation in forest product manufacturing

and trade, which then become the most important sources of household income. The

main prerequisites for this proactive livelihood strategy are access to capital and access

to markets (Shackleton, 2005. In Wiersum, 2005.; Ros-Tonen, 2005).

Diversification strategy: Households endeavour to diversify their livelihoods by

supplementing (subsistence) agriculture and sometimes petty trading with the sale of

forest products. This pro-active supplementary livelihood activity is mostly undertaken

14

by households with a low to intermediate income and often serves to generate

additional income that can be used for special household expenditures (Shackleton,

2005. In Wiersum, 2005.; Ros-Tonen, 2005).

Coping strategy: Households with few other opportunities respond to adverse impacts

of livelihood shocks or by using forest products for food security or for the provision of

cash for essential livelihood costs such as school fees. This reactive and defensive

livelihood strategy mitigates poverty rather than reducing it (Shackleton, 2005. In

Wiersum, 2005.; Ros-Tonen, 2005)

Survival strategy: Households revert to forest products as a last resort to secure food

and prevent destitution. This reactive and defensive livelihood strategy acts as a safety

net for households which have no other choice than to rely on this and other similar

safety nets and survival activities (Shackleton, 2005. In Wiersum, 2005.; Ros-Tonen,

2005).

2.2 Literature Review

The conceptual basis used in this study is the Value Chain Analysis and Sustainable

Livelihood Framework.

To understand and determine the economic value of NTFPs, the importance of

assessing the entire chain of a product is stressed. One approach is to use a Production-

to-Consumption System (PCS) (Godoy, Lubowski et al., 1993). This looks at the chain

of a commercialized product from production to consumption, which includes social,

economic, technological and ecological aspects of the product, the markets and the

production-system. The PCS approach looks at all aspects directly related to the market

chain of the product; from its biological system through processing and trade, to the

final consumer. The actors and organizations involved in this market chain are taken

into account, concerning their contribution to the NTFP market chain and the

15

relationships among these different actors in the chain. The PCS approach also takes

into account the amount of labor and capital that has been involved in the different

stages of the market chain (Bolwig et al., 2008; SNV, 2008 as cited by Ingram and

Bongers, 2009).

2.2.1 Value Chain Analysis (VCA) Approach

The value chain analysis (VCA) complements the Product – to – Consumer System

(PCS) approach used for market studies as it describes the role of NTFPs in the support

of household livelihood (Belcher, 1998). The PCS approach identifies and describes all

actors in the chain (producers, traders, transporters, processors, consumers), prices in

and out at each point of the trade chain, functions performed at each stage by different

actors , market demand (rising, constant, declining, approximate total demand in the

channel), market constraints and opportunities for the products (Raintree, 2005). On

the other hand, the VCA looks at all activities related to the production, transformation,

processing and trading until the final consumption of a product, and the external factors

which influence the market chain of the product (Belcher et al., 2001; Belcher, 2005;

Kusters et al., 2006). Increasingly, it is acknowledged that dependency and links to

forests go beyond village boundaries with NTFPs contributing significantly not only to

the livelihood of rural residents but also to the livelihood of migrants, national

exchequers and global economy (Jensen, 2009).

Marshall et al. (2006) highlight how VCA needs to assess several aspects of a market

chain in order to determine the value of the market chain. These include the number of

actors involved, the volume and the prices of the products, the commercialization

margins which determine the distribution of the actual monetary value actors in a chain

obtained from the commercialization of the product, and the economic profitability of

16

each actor in the chain related to fixed costs, variable costs and labour costs. A value

chain is different from the conventional analysis of a market place. It does not only

analyze the activities and degree to which firms in a chain operate, but also takes into

account power relations and governance, and the effect these aspects have on actors in

the chain (Kaplinsky et al., 2000). Transnational aspects such as the influence of

international organizations, institutional framework and treaties are also important in

Value chains (Velde et al., 2006). Certification aspects and the schemes such as fair-

and ethical trade can influence the value of a product and are therefore important

aspects of global value chains (Velde et al., 2006). Value chain analysis looks at the

product and market chain in order to see the „value added‟ to a product. Jensen (2009)

analyzed value chains of different products created from the same source, Agar wood

(Aquilaria crassna), and highlighted that different products created from the same

source, each have different values. Jensen (2009) shows that a high level of product

transformation and processing does not necessarily result in a higher product value. In

the case of Agar wood, the raw product has a higher value in some markets and for

certain consumers than the transformed product, due to the historical, cultural and

religious significance of the raw product (Jensen, 2009).

2.2.2 The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) Approach

It draws on this improved understanding of poverty, and integrates streams of analysis

relating to households, gender, governance and farming systems, bringing together

concepts to allow poverty to be understood more holistically. The resulting framework

is an analytical device for improved understanding of livelihoods and poverty. In this

context, a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and

social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is

sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, and maintain

17

or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not

undermining the natural resource base‟ (Humphrey and Schmitz, 2001; Scoones, 1998

as cited by Ingram and Bongers, 2009). The livelihoods framework does not represent

reality but provides an analytical structure to view the complexity of livelihoods,

influences on poverty and where interventions are possible. Research has revealed that

NTFPs are usually used as only one of an often extensive range of assets that constitute

a livelihood (Ambrose-Oji, 2003; Ros-Tonen and Wiersum, 2003 as cited by Ingram

and Bongers 2009). The activities of the poor and how they invest in asset-building are

driven partly by preferences and priorities. They are also influenced by their

vulnerability, including shocks (such as drought), overall trends (in resource stocks)

and seasonal variations. Livelihood options are also determined by structures (such as

the government or private sector) and processes (such as institutional, policy and

cultural factors) which people face. Conditions that determine access to assets and

livelihood opportunities, and the way in which these are converted into outcomes,

poverty, and opportunities to alleviate it, therefore depends on these variables. The

framework distinguishes five types of asset: human, natural, financial, social and

physical. These „‟building blocks‟‟ are to an extent substitutable; social capital such as

friends may be used when financial capital is not available. Poverty is a dynamic

process, with often unpredictable changes in context, constraints and opportunities, as

are household strategies and activities, varying across time and space (Farrington et al.,

1999 as cited by Ingram and Bongers 2009).

2.2.3 Identification of Species

Gnetum species are found in humid tropical forests from Nigeria through Cameroon,

Central African Republic, Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo to Angola (Schippers

2004). These two species are very similar and according to Lowe (1984), in Shiembo

18

(1999), can only be distinguished by the shape of the leaves and characters of the male

reproductive parts. Farmers, traders and researchers have identified Gnetum africanum

and Gnetum buchholzianum in both primary and secondary forest in the study area.

Some have attempted to identify the species based on observed ecologically and

morphological variations (Nkwatoh, 2000; Sunderland 2001; Lingondo et al, 2006)

which have resulted in contradictory but confirmatory reports that both species co-

exists in the same ecologic types. Both species co-exist in the same ecological forest

types: densely shaded under-story of wet (> 2000 mm rainfall yr), primary lowland

tropical forests as well as the under-story of swamp gallery forests near slow-moving

rivers (Markgraf, 1951; Stevenson and Zanoni, Field and Balun, 2007). This is because

the cross-sectional anatomy of Gnetum leaves causes them generally to have a low

ability to process collimated light that characterizes sunny habitats (Smith et al., 1997

as cited by Field and Balun, 2007). This is coupled with relatively low stomatal

densities, low shoot transpiration capacity (Jauregui and Benitez de Rojas, 2005 as

cited by Field and Balun, 2007), low vein densities with associated low xylem

hydraulic conductance and photosynthetic capacity (Sack and Frole, 2006; Brodribb et

al., 2007 as cited by Field and Balun, 2007). However, they also can thrive in more

brightly lit and disturbed habitats in wet, lowland and secondary tropical habitats,

farmlands, pastures and plantations. For example, Gnetum africanum, Gnetum

bucholzianum and their Asian relatives Gnetum loufense and Gnetum parvifolium are

reported in farm fallow, burned pastures, in addition to understory patches of degraded

primary forests in lowland wet tropical regions (Fondoun and Manga, 2000; Clark et

al., 2004; Field, observations in Vietnam and Thailand, 2007 as cited by Field and

Balun, 2007), but these occur only as resprouts from deep-rooted, underground tubers

that initially established in the forest understory and survived clearing of a closed

19

primary lowland rainforest (Clark et al., 2004). This has been confirmed anecdotally

that the photosynthetic capacities of these Gnetum taxa, found in open, disturbed

habitats, are also low (Field and Balun, 2007). Reports from CENDEP (Tanda 2009)

indicate that the African Gnetum species prefer slightly shady sites with acid to neutral,

sandy and well drained soils and but will tolerate infertile and shallow substrates – and

that it does well in swampy areas. Those observed in primary forest are well adapted to

this environments hence tend to develop sufficient pigmentation and strong leave

fibers, compared to the weak fibers and light pigment development in secondary,

disturbed and other sunlit converted primary habitats. The cross-sectional anatomy of

Gnetum leaves increases its functional opportunism allowing greater growth efficiency

under light-limiting conditions by reducing sapwood allocation relative to leaf area and

permitting increased capture of spatially variable light (i.e. sun flecks) in the understory

of primary forests (Field and Balun, 2007). This is relevant to the discussion on

protected areas which provides and creates ideal primary conditions for the growth of

higher quality Gnetum.

Gnetum buccholsianum sourced from the Centre region and referred to locally by

actors as „country gnetum‟ or „Yaounde gnetum‟ has broad leaves and is the

predominant species traded in the Southwest. Gnetum dealers reported that this species

is preferred in local and Nigerian markets, for the following reasons: it has larger

leaves; it is easier to select (pick) before shredding; produces a relatively large quantity

after shredding; does not shrink after cooking; stays longer without shredding leaves;

tastes better than G. africanum; has higher yield per vine (Lingondo et al, 2006).

Gnetum africanum sourced from Littoral and Centre is known locally as „Souza

gnetum‟ or „Kumba gnetum‟, named after the main markets and is mainly identified by

its narrow leaves (Tanda, 2009). Although it is less preferred by consumers and traders,

20

it constitutes a significant proportion of gnetum sold in Kumba, Mundemba and

Ekondo Titi and exported to Nigeria (Lingondo et al, 2006).

Table 2.1: Characteristics distinguishing Gnetum africanum and Gnetum

buchholzianum

G. africanum Internode of male spike of the same diameter throughout its

length, slender in dried (or old) specimens. Staminal column

exerted from the mouth of the envelope. Leaves ovate-oblong

or elliptic-oblong, more rarely lanceolate, attenuate at base,

abruptly acuminate, 10–13 cm long, and 3.5–5 cm broad.

G. buchholzianum Internode of male spike in fresh condition much thicker at the

base than higher up. Staminal column hardly exerted from the

mouth of the envelope. Leaves ovate-elliptic or broadly elliptic,

rounded or very slightly cuneate at base, abruptly acuminate, 9–

14 cm long, 4–7 cm broad.

(Adapted from Hutchinson and Dalziel, 1954, in Clark and Sunderland, 2004)

2.2.4 Nutritional and medicinal value

Gnetum africanum contains ash, protein, lipid and has in general a good nutritional

profile (Isong et al. 1999) While both species have similar of mineral contents, Gnetum

africanaum has higher calcium, magnesium and chlora, which play an important role to

play in the nutritional health of its consumers (Abia et al. 2007). The nutritional value

of Gnetum africanum leaves compared to Gnetum buchholzianum leaves is shown in

2.3.

Table. 2.2 and Table.2.3.

Table 2.2: Composition of Gnetum leaves in micro and macro elements

Macro elements (% of dry matter) Micro elements (% of dry matter)

Element

Gnetum

africanum

Gnetum

buchholzianum Elements

Gnetum

africanum

Gnetum

buchholzianum

Potassium 98 55 Magnesium 2411 2314

Phosphora 17 11 Iron 1626 1686

Calcium 83 34 Aluminium 1335 1065

Gg 40 18 Bore 244 229

Sodium 16 16 Copper 125 34

Chlora 38 3 Zinc 241 121

SiO2 17 13

21

Soufre 38 27 Source: Mialoundama (1996)

Table 2.3: Composition of Gnetum leaves in Essential and Non essential Amino

acid

Essential Amino acid (dry matter) Non essential Amino acid

Elements Gnetum

africanum

Gnetum

buchholzianum

Element Gnetum

africanum

Gnetum

buchholzianu

m

Isoleucine 064 068 Aspartic acid 181 21

Leucine 134 154 Serine 089 097

Lysine 084 092 Gluconic

acid 180 207

Methionine 016 024 Proline 173 132

Phenyl

alanine 10 115 Glycine 097 118

Threonine 080 091 Alanine 115 129

Tryptophane 024 026 Cystine 026 028

Valine 091 099 Tyrosine 051 069

Histidine 033 037

Arginine 080 039 Source: Mialoundama (1996)

The medicinal value of Gnetum spp. particularly in Asia and South America, has been

highlighted in a number of studies (Yao et al. 2006). In Cameroon it is recorded as

being used in the Southwest to ease childbirth (Jiofack, 2008) and the leaves have been

noted as a disinfectant for wounds, to treat hemorrhoid and as an anti-hangover agent

the fresh leaves are crushed and used to neutralize the effects of alcohol. The Bulu

ethnic group uses the leaves to treat colds; and increase blood production and to treat

spleen problems (CIFOR, 2008). The leaves are also taken as an enema against

constipation, to treat boils and fungal infections on the fingers (Schippers, 2004;

Schippers et al., 2004). In Nigeria, gnetum is used to treat of piles and high blood

pressure and also as medicine against enlarged spleen, sore throat and as a purgative.

Iweala et al. (2009) report on its effect during laboratory tests on weight gain,

hemoglobin and white blood cells. In the Central African Republic the leaves are eaten

to treat nausea and as an antidote to arrow poison made from Periploca nigrescens

(Schippers 2004; Schippers et al. 2004). The purgative and laxative effect of gnetum

22

has been found to vary with varieties with older leaves producing a higher laxative

effect and having a role in hypertensive and high cholesterol patients (Isong et al.,

1999).

2.2.5 Gnetum trade in Cameroon

2.2.5.1 Production areas and quantities

In 1994, a survey of NTFPs was conducted in the South-West Province of Cameroon

by the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry (MINEF) (Bokwe and Ngatoum

1994). The survey noted 5,296 tons of Gnetum leaves traded through the ports of

Idenau, Tiko, Limbe and Modeka between 1985 and 1994, highlighted the value of this

forest product. By 1996, a permit system for wild-harvested Gnetum had been

introduced and checkpoints established to control exports (Ngatoum, 2000). However,

no baseline distribution survey has been carried out to establish population densities

across the main known production regions of the Centre, Southwest, Littoral regions

and into East and South regions.

Much of the Gnetum leaving Cameroon from Idenau originates in the forests of the

Centre, East and South regions (Shiembo, 1999). This reflects the scarcity of Gnetum in

the heart of its natural range, where the natural populations have been harvested to

commercial scarcity in the South-West Province of Cameroon and in Nigeria

(Shiembo, 1999; Ndam et al., 1997). The urgent need to ensure conservation of these

species has been voiced (Bokwe and Ngatoum, 1994; Nkonko and de Koeijer, 2000),

and Fondoun and Tiko (1999) report that the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry

of Cameroon in 1995 declared G. africanum an “endangered species” (MINEF-PNGE

1995).

23

2.2.5.2 Domestication

A number of sources indicate that currently all gnetum marketed from Cameroon is

harvested directly from the wild (Nchinda et al. 2008; Tanda 2009; Clark, 2004). This

is despite the fact that Gnetum species are not difficult to cultivate; the principal

requirements being shade, a support for the vine to climb on and suitable soil type and

sufficient rainfall. In Asia and the pacific Gnetum spp. used for food and medicinal use,

such as Gnetum gnemon are widely domesticated (Suhardi, 1999; Orwa, 2009).

Building on the pioneering work of Patrick Shiembo, who discovered how to propagate

the vine from stem cuttings, the Limbe Botanic Garden‟s „Conservation Through

Cultivation Programme‟ established a genebank of G. africanum and G.

buchholzianum, developing and disseminating effective cultivation techniques in the

late 1990s (Nkefor et al., 1999). They also developed methods for the propagation and

domestication of Gnetum africanum and G. buchholzianum (Nkefor et al., 2003)

including a cultivation model using gnetum vine cuttings, experimental/demonstration

farms, organization and training of farmers and extension workers on gnetum

cultivation and producing an gnetum cultivation manual. Since the demise of this

project, an NGO, CENDEP has been the major actor promoting domestication

activities, reaching 115 farmers in six villages in the Southwest around Korup and

Takamanda National Parks, often part of integrated livelihood and conservation

projects. A recently approved project in December 2009 from the Ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Development Republic of Cameroon also aims to support

Gnetum domestication.

In Asia, several Gnetum species (such as Gnetum gnemon) are widely domesticated for

food use, such that the majority of Gnetum leaves and seeds are now sourced from

domesticated, rather than the wild (Orwa et al., 2009; Pers comm.; Cunningham, 2009).

24

2.2.5.3 Identification of Actors

According to Lingondo et al., (2006) actors identified on the market chain in the

support zone of the Korup national park in the South west include harvesters, buyers,

workers, traditional authorities, government officials and consumers. Harvesters

harvest gnetum at the resource base and sell to the different categories of buyers at the

farm gates. Wholesale buyers buy in large quantities and export directly to international

markets in neighboring countries such as Nigeria, retail to sellers in semi-urban and

urban markets or sell to exporters at frontier markets within Cameroon, such as Idenau.

Shredders (buy and cut) are retailers who buy either directly from harvesters or from

wholesale buyers and then shred the leaves and sell to consumers including households

and restaurant operators. Government officials and traditional authorities play more or

less supervisory roles while the workers attend to the manual operations to facilitate

handling transactions (Lingondo et al., 2006).

2.2.5.4 Organization of the Gnetum market

The structure of the market refers to how the market is organized. While Cameroon has

a widespread and important internal market for gnetum, Nigeria is recognized as a very

important international market for gnetum. Existing operators in Cameroon cannot bar

the entry of new traders and there are no legal prohibitions on entry and exit into the

trade. The marketing of gnetum in Cameroon is not organized, as is the case in Nigeria.

Activities are not being regulated at all levels on the market chain with the exception of

Kumba and Idenau markets where there exist unions for buyers and to a lesser extent

Bota wharf (Lingondo et al., 2006). The absence of unions in gnetum trade in

Cameroon is a serious handicap as it renders Cameroonian traders vulnerable in the

market, resulting in enormous economic and ecological losses.

25

2.2.5.5 Identification of market channels

Ndoye (1995) identified various channels through which NTFP flow from farmers to

consumers. For channels exclusive to the domestic markets, the farmer can sell NTFP

directly to consumers (who can be other farmers). He can also sell NTFP to retailers who

sell to consumers. The farmer can also sell directly to wholesalers who sell to retailers,

who in turn sell to consumers. The longest marketing channels are those related to NTFP

for which there are transactions with neighbouring countries. In this situation, the farmer

can sell NTFP to the assembler (who can be a wholesaler). The assembler then sells to

another wholesaler. The wholesaler may either sell directly to retailers who in turn sell to

consumers or he may sell to other wholesalers coming from Nigeria, Gabon, Equatorial

Guinea, or Central African Republic. These wholesalers from neighbouring countries

with Cameroon in turn sell to other wholesalers, retailers and consumers in their own

countries (Ndoye, 1995).

2.2.5.6 Estimation of the volume and value of gnetum marketed

The leaves of both Gnetum africanum and G. buchholzianum are very important article

of trade in the Central African region, particularly in Cameroon where the leaves are

harvested on a daily basis and sold in local and regional markets. As the leaves of both

species are evergreen they are available throughout the year. The volume of export

trade in these leafy vegetables has significantly increased in recent years (Shiembo,

1999).It is common to see vehicle loads of Gnetum heading to the border market of

Idenau on Wednesday and Thursdays every week from the forests of the Centre, East

and South Provinces of the country. It is estimated that 600 tonnes a year leave from

this port alone with a local market value of 1 800 000 000 CFA (Bokwe and Ngatoum,

1994 as cited by Shiembo, 1999). This large volume of trade offers valuable

employment to many young people in Cameroon and surrounding countries. As much

26

as 450 000 CFA/ month is reported to be made from the sale of Gnetum by one of the

full-time traders in the product in the Idenau market in 1997 (Shiembo, 1999).

2.2.5.7 Price Variation and Seasonality

According to Lingondo et al., (2006) quantities of gnetum traded depend on the scale of

operation of the actor. Harvesters in the support zone of the Korup national park collect

between 5 and 50 bundles a week, with prices ranging from FCFA100 to FCFA150 per

bundle in the dry season to FCFA150 to FCFA300 per bundle during the rainy season.

The size per bundle differs with location, collector, species and season. However, it is

estimated that an average bundle weighs approximately 1 kilogram (kg). Survey results

confirm that relatively less gnetum is available during the rainy season than in the dry

season. Shredders buy between 20 and 60 bundles a week during the dry season

depending on frequency of activity per week, shredding on the average 10 bundles per

day in larger settlements and 5 bundles in villages. In the rainy season, they buy

between 20 and 30 bundles per week. Cost per bundle ranges from FCFA 100 to FCFA

250 at farm gates and FCFA 300 to FCFA 500 in urban and semi-urban centers. They

in turn sell at between 60% to %100 profit. Wholesale traders who sell locally buy

between 600 and 1000 bundles per week at the cost of FCFA 100 to FCFA 250 at farm

gate. They in turn sell to shredders at the cost of FCFA 300 to FCFA 500 during the dry

season and FCFA 600 to FCFA 700 during the rainy season. Prices go up to FCFA

1000 in December during Christmas.

Although prices are fairly stable there exist slight variations based on quality (degree of

freshness) of leaves, the sizes of the bundles traded at a given period and from a given

location and seasonal variations. Prices are generally set by the suppliers but are

negotiable. Farm-gate prices are not necessarily influenced by exchange rates at the

frontier markets. Prices generally change in response to the underlying conditions of

27

demand and supply. For instance, prices do fall whenever there is excess supply at any

level of the market chain, from the farm-gate in Cameroon to the frontier market in

Nigeria resulting in both ecological and economic losses but when shortages occur,

prices rise resulting in higher profits. The systematic adaptation to changes in supply

and demand by the suppliers is not consistent since most supplies from Cameroon are

not organized. Repeated cases of excess supply may be observed consistently over a

period because supplies are not regulated, resulting in spoilage, price falls and losses

(Lingondo et al., 2006).

2.2.5.8 Price Mechanism

According to Ndoye (1995) prices of NTFP depend to a large extent on supply and

demand conditions. Supply of NTFP is characterized by the level of NTFP gathered or

harvested as well as the level of NTFP stored. Due to the seasonal nature of NTFP

production, storage of the product becomes important in guarantying the availability of

NTFP throughout the year. During the period of production, there is an important quantity

of NTFP available at the market and prices are lower than the periods where NTFP are

dearer. The demand of NTFP is determined by the quantities of NTFP traders are willing

and able to purchase, which is a function of the amount of working capital they have at

their disposal, the signal of scarcities in urban markets within the Humid Forest Zone, as

well as the demand by foreign traders and consumers from border markets with Gabon,

Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Central African Republic (Ndoye, 1995).

The process of price formation of NTFP between the farmer (the seller) and the trader (the

buyer) is also a function of the reservation price for both the buyer and the seller of NTFP.

For the seller of NTFP, the reservation price is the smallest amount of money he would

accept for his product. For the buyer of NTFP, the reservation price is the biggest amount

of money he would pay to acquire the product such that the transaction would never take

28

place if he is charged more. Both farmers and traders engage in bargaining because each

party involved in the transaction wants to get a price as close as possible to the other

party's reservation price. An equilibrium price is arrived at through haggling (Ndoye,

1995).

For NTFP sold at the market, the bargaining power of farmers depend on the types of

NTFP at their disposal (degree of perishability), the quantity of NTFP available at the

markets, their actual financial needs (based on actual incomes they have at their disposal),

the number of traders present at the market, prices that prevailed during previous market

days, and the number of farmers selling NTFP. The bargaining power of traders depends

to a large extent on prices of NTFP that prevail in urban markets and in markets at the

borders (i.e., expected prices), the quantity of NTFP available at the market, the number of

traders present at the market, and the actual marketing costs and the margins expected.

Traders of NTFP can collude, i.e., agree on a single buying price at which they buy NTFP

from farmers. However, this collusion may break down if traders come from different

zones where the demand of NTFP is different. Another factor that can make collusion not

to work well is the ethnic differences among traders (Ndoye, 1995).

For NTFP sold at the village, the bargaining power of farmers depends on the number of

traders present at the village to buy, the accessibility of the village, the supply of NTFP,

and the degree of perishability of NTFP. If many traders are present at the village to buy

NTFP, this can give a signal to farmers on the relative scarcity of NTFP in urban areas.

During the period of peak production, many traders prefer to purchase NTFP at the market

rather than going to villages (Ndoye, 1995).

29

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study Area

3.1.1 Location

The study area as shown in Figure 1 covered four divisions in Cameroon: Manyu,

Kupe-Muanenguba, Meme and Ndian, which were selected as important production

zones in the Southwest and one division, Mungo (Moungo), in Littoral region. These

were selected based on a situational analysis and rapid assessment that in these regions

prior to field work. In Manyu division all four sub-divisions were judged to be

Figure 3.1: Map of study area villages and markets in Cameroon (Sources:

Adapted from the map of Buea – Douala (NB – 32 – IV),

www.wikipdedia,org and N. Gil Paris, 1979 and field work, 2009).

30

Akwa Ibon State

Cross River State

productively important. In Kupe Muanenguba, Nguti sub-division and in Ndian, the

Bamusso sub-division were selected. Two villages were then selected in each sub-

division based on their access to markets (easy and difficult). In Nigeria the main

markets for Gnetum from Cameroon were identified, based on the responses of traders

and exporters in Cameroon and from key informants, these three markets are located in

Cross River and Akwa Ibon states.

Figure 3.2: Map of study area Nigerian markets for Cameroonian Gnetum

31

(Source: www.wikipdedia,org )

Figure 3.3: Map of study sites in the Southwest and Littoral regions

(Source: www.wikipdedia,org)

3.1.2 Surface Area

The total area of the Ejagham forest reserve, at its time of establishment, was

approximately 640Km² (Nkwatoh, 2000). This area, over the years, has been reduced

substantially with the advent of cocoa and palm plantation establishment by the ever-

increasing surrounding population. The Takamanda Forest Reserve covers an area of

676km². The reserve stretches along the eastern international border of Nigeria and this

forms the north and northwest boundaries of the reserve. The Mone Forest Reserve

Southwest Region

Littoral Region

32

covers an area of 538km². Meme division covers a total land surface of about

3,102Km² which represents about 12.2% of the total land area of the South West

region. The Mungo division has a total area of 1,437.5 sq mi (3,723 km2) (BRCM,

2005).

3.1.3 Population

Table 3.1 shows population densities in the study area. The Littoral region has a high

population density, mainly due to the presence of Douala with an estimated population

of 1,352,833 inhabitants. Mungo Division is adjacent to Wouri Division in which the

city and port of Douala is located. Nkongsamba is easily reached from Douala by 135

km by tarred road, which together with its fertile soils; help to explain its high

population density. The Southwest divisions however have much lower population and

densities, being both far from the major Southwest capital of Buea and from other

major towns in Cameroon: Mamfe to Buea is 234 km, Bangem to Buea is 147 km, and

Mundemba to Buea is 167 km all along largely unpaved roads. Nigeria borders

Cameroon, with Mamfe the nearest Cameroonian large town in proximity. It is the

eighth most populous country in the world. 2006 estimates indicate that 42% of the

population is between 0–14 years of age, while 55% is between 15 and 65; the birth

rate is significantly higher than the death rate, at 40.4 and 16.9 per 1000 people

respectively.

33

Table 3.1: Population statistics of study area Country Region/State

Division

Surface

Area km2

Population Density

per km²

Capital Ethnic

groups

Cam

ero

on

Southwest 24,571 838,0421 34 Buea Bakweri,

Anyang,

Ndian 6,626 129,6592 20 Mundemba Ejaham,

Balong,

Bassossi,

Upper

Banyang,

MboKorup,

Isangele,

Oroko

Kupe

Manengouba

3,404 123,011 36 Bangem

Manyu 9,565 177,389 19 Mamfe

Littoral 20,239 2,202,340 109 Douala Bassa, Duala

(Douala)

Mungo 3,723 452,722 2 122 Nkongsam

ba

Abo, Bankon

Nig

eria

Cross River 20,156 3,104,446 3 154 Calabar Efik,

Ejagham

Bekwarra

Akwa Ibom 7,081 4,805,4513 679 Uyo Ibibio,Annan

g, Oro [Oron]

Sources: 1987 Census, 2001 estimate: "Departments of Cameroon". Statistics from Institut national de la

statistique (Cameroun) - Annuaire statistique du Cameroun 2004. http://www.statoids.com/

ycm.html. Retrieved April 6, 2009., 2005 estimate from 1991 census

3.1.4 Climate

Gnetum species thrive in a humid climate and prefers an annual rainfall of about 3000

mm. All the southwest divisions are in the Equatorial climatic belt of the tropical

climatic zone, characterized by the high temperatures and high rainfall (Ngulle et al.

2007)., with the exception of the highland areas, around Kupe Manengouba, Lake

Barombi Mbo and Mount Supe, that are cooler, with altitude playing a decisive factor

in climatic variations (Ngulle et al. 2007). The climate, like most of Cameroon, has two

defined seasons. The dry season runs from November to April and the wet season from

May to October (Ngulle et al. 2007). Mungo division has an equatorial climate heavily

influenced by the Guinea Monsoon (BRCM, 2005).

3.1.5 Temperature

CENDEP observed that domesticated Gnetum by vegetative propagation takes a longer

time to sprout to foliage in colder environments, such as Buea (≤ 23ºC) but less time in

34

hotter environments, such as Limbe (≥ 26 ºC). This observation is important in

understanding the distribution of Gnetum across the study area. The annual average

temperature in Fako division is about 26.4°c, especially around the coastal areas, but

drops to about 23°c in higher altitude areas around Buea. Higher temperatures occur

around Muyuka on the leeward side of the Mt. Fako, from 27.5°c to 28°c in February.

Around Limbe temperatures are moderated by land and sea breezes (Ngulle et al.

2007). Temperatures within Meme division range from 26ºc in Bairto 24.4ºc Kumba,

and slightly hotter in Konye due its to inland location (Ngulle et al. 2007). In

Takamanda the monthly average is around 27ºC (Groves 2002). Mungo division has an

average annual temperature of 27ºC, varying between 32 ºC and 22 ºC (BRCM, 2005).

3.1.6 Rainfall

Rainfall distribution across the study area is uneven. It is highest at the coast and

diminishes towards the interior of the division, especially in areas of the lee-ward side

of the mountain. Three factors are responsible for rainfall distribution here: nearness to

the sea, the prevailing winds and altitude. The rainfall pattern is greatly influenced by

the sea. Places that are near the sea generally experience more rainfall than place

farther away. Limbe, for example receives an annual rainfall of over 5.000 mm (Ngulle

et al. 2007). Annual rainfall in the Meme division increases from West to East. It is

2020mm in Bai (around Mbonge) and 2174mm in Kumba to the West. This is due to

differences in altitude. The mean annual rainfall of the Ejagham Forest Reserve for the

period 1995-1998 was 1134mm. That was, however, representative of the northern part

of the reserve and generally increases to the South towards the Korup National Park.

Monthly rainfall records indicated that the highest rains were recorded in July and

August for the area. Annual records also show that 1995 was the wettest year within the

period of the data collection (1995-1998). The mean annual rainfall recorded for the

35

period of 1995-1998 is presented thus: 1995=3693 mm; 1996=296.11 mm;

1997=256.23; 1998=292.23 (Nkwatoh, 2000). Most rainfall within the Takamanda area

occurs from April through to November, with peaks in July and September. Total

rainfall is probably similar to that on the Nigerian side of the border in the Okwangwo

part of the Cross River National Park – up to 4500 mm p.a. (WWF, 1990 as cited by

Groves, 2002). Rainfall within the Mungo division ranges from 2 500 to 3 000

mm/year. The area has four seasons: Two rainy seasons from April to June (small rainy

season) and July to September (major rainy season).Two dry season: October and

November (small dry season) and December to March (major dry season) (BRCM,

2005). Gnetum species grow best in this type of wet, shaded, primary lowland tropical

forests.

3.1.7 Relief

Gnetum spp. occurs mostly in humid tropical forests below 1200 to 1500 m elevation

(Clark and Sunderland, 2004; Schippers 2004). In Fako altitude and the alignment of

relief in relation to the prevailing humid monsoons which bring the rain, also affect the

amount of rainfall. Debuntscha on the windward side of the Fako Mt. has an extremely

high average rainfall of 10,000 mm, while Muyuka on the lee-ward side has a rainfall

recording of less than 1,612 mm, though this is still high for Cameroon (Ngulle et al.

2007). The relief map of Fako shows that it has a varied landscape with distinct plains

and highlands. The lowlands can be traced along the coast which and divided into a

mangrove swampy coast and rocky coast (Ngulle et al. 2007). The main highland here

is the Mount Cameroon, which is also called Mount Fako, from where the Division

derived its name. The mountain consists of lava reaching a height of 4,095 m, to the

west is Mount Etinde at 1.713 m. Meme division is located in the coastal lowland area,

with its relief is generally low and level with some undulations, ranging between 300-

36

800 m above sea level, with the highest elevations found along the western boundaries

with Ndian division, where the land rises to the Rumpi Hills at 1764 m a.s.l, which

form part of the Western Highlands range. The northern part of the Ejagham Forest

Reserve is undulating with occasional knife-edge ridges forming the water shed, with

elevation between 135 m to 237 m above sea level. Towards the South and Southwest,

the area becomes more and more broken and mountainous with an elevation of about

100 m a.s.l. The topography is rugged with frequent granitic outcrops from the southern

and Southwestern stretch of the reserve (Sanders, 1955). The terrain of Takamanda is

rolling in the lowlands but rises sharply to 1500 m a.s.l. in the north of reserve, where

slopes are extremely steep. Small hills, up to 726 m a.s.l., lie to the north of the Obonyi

villages along the border with Nigeria. The hills separating the villages of Kekpane and

Basho II are similar in height; rising to between 600-700 m. Mone is primarily lowland

forest with highland patches occurring from 370-990 m a.s.l throughout the reserve.

Towards the north of Mone and into Mbulu the topography becomes rises up to the

Bamenda Highlands with Mount Oko at 1250 m a.s.l. (Groves 2002).

3.1.8 Drainage

Gnetum species thrives best in the understories of forests (Field and Balun, 2007) and

in well drained areas (Tanda 2009). This is an important factor in explaining why it is

not found evenly across the region. Drainage of the Fako division is dominated by the

volcanic karst of Mount Cameroon. This is very porous and lacking in surface drainage

(except the crater lake at 2000m above Bakingili), characterized by short streams

originating as a line of spring on the lower slopes from the West Coast to Muyuka

(Fidelis Orock, 2006). The division is characterized by many dry valleys representing

former water courses that are now ephemeral streams (called “Ndongo” in Buea). The

main perennial water courses are the Idenau, Lumbo, Likumba, Mondoni, Meanja,

37

Balong and Mungo rivers (bordering Littoral). Meme division is located in Cameroon‟s

principal Cameroon watershed, extending from the Rumpi Hills to the Adamawa

plateau. The division is drained by many rivers, in prominent drainage basins such as

the River Meme (976 km²) that flows through Mbonge subdivision, “Kumba water”

(104 km²) that flows within Kumba town, Kake river that rises from Lake Barombi and

flows through Kumba. Mandese (52 km²), Mbeteke (38 km²), Kendongue (96 km²),

Malende (40 km²) and Mambanda (68 km²) are all small rivers. The river Mungo serves

as boundary line between part of Konye sub-division and Nguti sub-division with the

Mameri stream forming a confluence with the Mungo and Kombone. Water features

include crater lakes at Barombi Koto, Barombi Mbo Lake and Lake Disson in Konye

and a tectonic lake at Mbwandong in Mbonge sub-division. Two main rivers flow

through the Takamanda Reserve, the Makone and the Oyi (or Magbe). The Makone

drains the Matene highlands and runs southwest through the Reserve to meet the

Munaya River. The Oyi flows from Matene, through Nigeria and curves back into

Takamanda, acting as part of the western boundary for the Reserve, and eventually

drain into the Mamfe River. The Mone River flows through the Mone Forest Reserve

from east to west eventually draining into the Munaya (Groves 2002).

3.1.9 Vegetation

Gnetum spp. grow best in densely shaded understory of primary lowland tropical

forests and swamp gallery forests near slow-moving rivers, and sub-optimally, as relicts

in farm fallow, burned pastures and understory patches of degraded primary forests

(Fondoun et al. 2000). Domestication experiments also corroborate the importance of

shade, with the highest biomass production, growth rates and leaf palatability found

with 50% rather than 20% shade (tree or net) cover (Ndam et al. 2001). In Fako the

natural lowland tropical forest vegetation has been largely cleared to create settlements,

38

farms and rubber, palm trees, tea and banana plantations. From about 915 m above

Buea town inclines to a very steep slope covered by thick and evergreen forest. The

forest extends up to an altitude of 1.700m and gives way to typical savannah

vegetation. The grass becomes much shorter at the height of 3.00m to 3.500m and

above this, the typical vegetation is lichens and mosses. On the south side of the

mountain is tropical rainforest, from the foot of the mountain at Ekona, Bafia, Owe,

Munyenge and over to Malende. Much of this though has either been exploited or

cleared for farms and plantations and where timber and fuel wood is exploited (Ngulle

et al. 2007). Meme division is within the dense Equatorial forest, which is has also

been extensively exploited for timber and other forest resources. The remnant forest

contains trees of high economic value as Iroko, Mahogany, Obeche and Ebony. The

remnants are now protected as community forest and forest reserves or national parks,

including the Meme River Forest Reserve, the Southern Bakundu Forest Reserve and

Lake Barombi Reserve. These protected areas are under severe attacks from human

activities (e.g. lumbering, the creation of plantations and settlements). The expansion

of anthropogenic activities in this forest landscape has created many “windows” and

“corridors” in the forest flora and fauna (Ngulle et al. 2007). The southern part of

Ejagham Forest Reserve also contains lowland Guinea-Congolian rainforest (White,

1993), together with the Korup National Park, Takamanda National Park Rumpi Hills

and Mount Cameroon form a major block of the Western Guinea-Congolian refuge into

which the rain forest was reduced during the Pleistocene (Gartland, 1974; Hamilton,

1976; Endler, 1982; Gartland, 1986). The northern part of the reserve is a mixture of

secondary and primary rainforest which decreases in intensity northwards. This

lowland rainforest block has a very high flora diversity (Gartland, 1986, Comiskey

2003) as well as widely distributed species which are common to other West and

39

Central African lowland forests. The majority of the southern and central parts of the

Takamanda Forest Reserve and the Mone Forest Reserve are covered by dense lowland

(100-500 m) humid Guineo-Congolian forest. Ridge and mid-elevation (“highland”)

forest (500-800 m) within the east, west and southern parts of Takamanda and scattered

throughout Mone. Montane forest (800-1500 m) is predominantly found in the northern

part of Takamanda, and going northwards into the northwest region towards Mount

Oku. Isolated patches of savannah and gallery forest occur in the extreme north of

Takamanda and more commonly within the north and east of Mbulu. This

savannah/woodland complex extends eastwards and northwards along the Nigerian

border, towards the Bamenda highlands. There are three villages enclaved within

Takamanda surrounded by extensive areas of secondary vegetation and farm bush.

Patches of this vegetation type are found near all the villages of the area (Groves 2002).

The Mungo division has swampy vegetation that abounds with raffia and oil palms

(BRCM, 2005).

3.1.10 Geology and soils

Ekok, Ayoake, Inokun and Babong are on a dividing line in the Southwest, between

cretaceous sedimentary deposits of the north and pre-Cambrian gneiss and schists in the

southern part of Ejagham Forest Reserve. The sedimentary rocks of the north are

mainly composed of friable current bedded, pebbly sandstones, containing pieces of

pink feldspars or bands of shale micaceous clay. Shales occur locally. Outcrops arkoses

and grits also occur locally, especially west of Inokun including saline springs.

Towards the South, numerous outcrops of quartz-mica schists occur (Sanders, 1955).

Tropical rainforests typically have ferrallitic soils with a low fertility, but Fako is

blessed with fertile volcanic soils. The fertility has encouraged both small scale,

peasant and plantation agriculture. The ferrallitic soils found around Muyuka are good

40

for grains such as groundnuts, melons, maize and tuber crops such as cassava and yams

throughout the year (Ngulle et al. 2007). The soils in Meme division are generally of

the zonal ferrallitic group, with varied types having red, reddish brown and yellow

colour. They are essentially clayed resulting from the decomposition of either

crystalline rocks such as granite, gneiss, schists and mechaschists or from the

sedimentary rocks of the coastal lowland region (Ngulle et al. 2007). Analysis of the

top 10cm of soils from Korup National Park shows that soils are strongly acidic and

low in nutrients (Gartland, 1986; Newbery et al, 1988). Newbery, et al (1988) show

that it is predominantly sand with clay components which increase with depth. The

texture shows a corresponding trend from friable in the surface horizon to aggregate

below. Apart from the recent alluvial soils on the banks of the rivers Mungo, Abo and

Dibombé that allow for the growth of market gardening and low water crops, the

Mungo area has yellow iron soils derived from sedimentary rocks (BRCM, 2005). No

studies have characterised Cameroon‟s Gnetum environment pedologically.

Domestication experiments in Cameroon indicate that Gnetum thrives best in volcanic

soils; slightly acid to neutral, sandy and well drained substrate soils; and leached

ferrallitic and lateritic soils. It will tolerate infertile and shallow soils (Tanda 2009).

Ulti-oxisols according to US Soil Taxonomy Classification (Soil Survey Staff; 1975)

contain oxides of iron and aluminium where rainfall and high temperatures have

promoted extensive leaching of calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium ions and

silica by percolating rainwater. Those nutrients that remain are absorbed up rapidly by

Gnetum and fast growing surrounding vegetation. The human impact of forest

clearance, farmlands and plantations impoverishes these soil types, since it destroys the

vegetative cover and short-circuits the recycling of nutrients in the soil by plant decay.

41

3.1.11 Agriculture

Over 80% of Fako‟s population is engaged in agriculture (Ngulle et al. 2007). Crops

include cassava, cocoyam, plantains, banana, yams, and fruits such as avocado, orange

and mango. Cash crops include cocoa, coffee and banana, around Ekona, Bafia and

Munyenge and Malende. From Tiko to Limbe and Debundscha maize can be cultivated

continuously throughout the year, due to the year-round rainfall in this area. There is

small scale poultry farming and piggery. Plantation agriculture for banana and

pineapples is carried out by the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC) in

partnership with the company Del-Monte (Ngulle et al. 2007). In Meme, agriculture is

also the most dominant economic activity, with both indigenous and settlers involved in

subsistence food crop farming of cocoyam, yellow coco (Akwana), taro (Ibo-coco),

plantains, cassava, yams, maize, tropical fruits and vegetables. Cash crop farming

includes cocoa, coffee, palm nuts and rubber. Plantain agriculture is also carried out in

Malende, Mokonje, Laduma, Kompenda, Bakossi and Bai-Mbonge, mainly by CDC.

3.2 Methodology

The study made use of socio-economic surveys with a limited biological assessment.

Random sampling, surveys, participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools such as semi-

structured interviews, seasonal calendars, income ranking, activity profiles, focus group

surveys, individual questionnaires and visual assessments, observations and key–

informants were also used to collect data .

3.2.1 Sampling Methods

3.2.1.1 Site Selection

Sampling was done in two stages. Secondary data was collected prior to field work to

select the broad geographical area and centres of population. A rapid assessment was

42

then carried out in the field at each level in the value chain, and in each region. Sample

selection was based on characteristics of distance to market, accessibility of the village,

size and amount of inhabitants and availability of Gnetum spp. Individuals were

purposively sampled by selecting different levels of influence and activity in harvesting

such as age, physical capacity, technology available and modes of income. Eleven

focus group meetings were held with village heads and actors in the Southwest and

Littoral regions to ascertain a general socio-economic picture and situation of gnetum

and to determine areas and villages that were productively important. These were

guided by a questionnaire (see Appendix I). In the Southwest region the Manyu, Kupe

Muanenguba and Ndian divisions were selected as productively important. In the

Manyu division all four sub-divisions have a high production of Gnetum spp, in Kupe-

Muanenguba only Nguti sub-division was seen as productively important and in Ndian

Bamusso sub-division was selected. In Mungo division, Bonalea, Dibombari and

Mbanga sub-divisions were selected as productively important. Two villages were

selected in each sub-division according to their accessibility to markets (ease of access

- determined by distance, state of the roads and availability of transportation) with 50%

sampled with „easy‟ and 50% „difficult‟ access. In each village, 25% of estimated

producer population present (after a rapid survey of those present) was sampled

interviewed using a questionnaire. Tapkwe village in Akwaya was the exception, where

25% of the total producer population was sampled due to a village ceremony.

Markets were selected based on the classification of market importance according to

the role they play in the assembly and distribution of gnetum and their accessibility

(Ruiz Pérez et al. 2000). Based on these Type II markets; medium-sized markets of

regional importance, with a medium level of self-sufficiency, acting as secondary nodes

for the small local markets and intermediate assembly points for the large urban

43

markets (Ruiz Pérez et al., 2000) in Fako and Meme divisions were selected as

important. Fiango market in Kumba, Muea market in Buea, Mutengene, Tiko, Idenau

and Limbe market was selected. Interviews were guided by dedicated questionnaires

for traders (see Appendix III) and exporters (Appendix IV). In the markets, 25% of the

total number of trader/retailers and exporters identified were interviewed. Where

possible, 25% of estimated number of retailers and exporters present, who were not

union members, were equally interviewed. When it was not possible to conduct the

interview on the spot, a rendezvous was fixed at the convenience of the respondent.

Markets in the Centre in Yaounde were rapidly assessed to ascertain if any of the

gnetum came from the Southwest or Littoral. In Nigeria, the markets were identified by

tracking the product from its main exit point in Cameroon to its final market destination

in Nigeria. On this basis, three markets were surveyed; Oron distribution market; Ikom

market and Watt market in Calabar. Meetings were held with authorities in each of the

markets where the purpose of the mission was explained and then introductions to the

gnetum actors were made. This was followed by a rapid assessment of the number

actors in the gnetum chain in each of the markets. At least 25% of union members

present were interviewed in the markets visited. In Oron only semi-structured

interviews were conducted using a checklist with similar content to the exporter

questionnaires, due to the busy nature of the market. Most of these interviews were

audio-taped and recorded. Waybills were also used to gather quantitative data on

exports from the MinFoF post at Idenau and the PSRF. Restaurant operators were

selected using a similar methodology in the market towns and interviewed using a

questionnaire (see Appendix V).

44

3.2.1.2 Selection of Respondents

Respondents to the questionnaires were selected from the following target-groups, who

had been identified as the key stakeholders and actors in the Gnetum spp. value chain:

village chiefs, village traditional council members, traders, farmers, gnetum collectors,

gatherers and harvesters, hunters, students and pupils, school teachers, agricultural and

forestry extension staff, transporters; escorts; gnetum seller‟s and buyer‟s managers,

union presidents, members of NGOs, CBOs and CIGs, and the various Forest User

Groups.

3.2.1.3 Questionnaire Design

The questionnaires were based on other NTFP market studies performed in the

framework of the CIFOR-FAO project. These were reviewed, tested and further

environmental, social and economic aspects were incorporated, drawing on the results

of a study looking at the „real values‟ of NTFPs in Congo Basin (Ingram et al. 2009).

The questionnaires were then adapted to collect data specifically on the Gnetum value

chain. These were clearly formulated and defined to be understandable by every actor

in the chain with a simple language, structured according to topic and no longer than 1

hour. The questionnaires address the research hypothesis and selected critical

indicators. The questions were fine-tuned to enhance theoretical accuracy, policy

relevance and to be understandable, plausible and meaningful to the respondents. Five

sets of questionnaires were developed and administered in the field. These were for

Focus groups, Producers, Traders, Exporters and Restaurant Operators.

45

3.2.2 Data Collection

3.2.2.1 Preparation

The first step was to define clearly the objective of the study and the terms to be used.

An introduction letter from CIFOR was prepared which explained briefly the study,

what will happen to the results and requesting cooperation from authorities,

government organizations and authorities.

3.2.2.2 Secondary data collection

Secondary data was gathered to both inform and refine the choice of the markets. This

data was obtained from international organizations, government documents, official

statistical data (National Statistic Institute), scientific articles and maps.

Quantities of gnetum leaving Idenau were also obtained from way bills. These

documents from the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MinFoF) are used to trace

special forestry products and the annual permitted quantity. The form in triplicate

includes: the name of the company; species of product; quantity; vehicle matriculation

number; driver‟s name and place of origin of resource signed by the MinFoF Delegate

and signed by the chief of post (of origin), driver and later by the chief of post of

destination after which specification forms (Bulletin de spécification des produits

forestiers spéciaux) are attached to the way bills.

3.2.2.3 Field work

During this physical primary data collection phase, detailed information regarding the

gnetum market was collected directly from actors involved in the market chain and

indirect actors over a period of five months from March to July 2009.

46

3.2.2.4 Rapid assessment

A rapid assessment was carried out in the Southwest and Littoral regions for one week

from January 3 to 11 2009, to determine the main geographical areas where actors

along the chain are located and the main market channels and to test questionnaires

before going to the field. It consisted of a quick scan with key informants and small

enterprises at national and regional level and representatives of support organizations,

of the major actors, key informants, markets, source of products in the forest and main

production villages. The rapid assessment also addressed issues such as protocol for

gaining access to villages and how to conduct focus group interviews. The tested

questionnaires provided information about the length of the questionnaires, the

comprehensibility of the questions and terms used, and the actual information which

will be gained which gave me the possibility of improving the questionnaires which

were eventually used.

3.2.2.5 Observation

Direct observation was used in villages, markets and forests. This was to accustom the

researcher to the areas visited, its products and to aid the actors in getting used to me

and build up trust, especially where new, finding informants, and arranging interviews

on individual and group level. Market „‟walks‟‟ were conducted on main and minor

market days, at different times during the day to observe the products traded, how they

were traded, relations, prices and for contacting key informants.

3.2.2.6 Interviews

A situation analysis was conducted with multiple stakeholders from all major stages of

the chain. Although it was difficult to always gather actors from several stages in the

market chain together at once in a location, this exercise was beneficial in identifying

other actors, problems; critical issues in the Gnetum chain functioning and gather basic

47

data. An initial meeting with villagers, chiefs, market group meeting was conducted in

order to: solicit participation of the actors and support organization (government,

support organizations, extension agents) in the research; explain the research

objectives; explain how (confidential) data will be handled, the outputs, dissemination

and timescale of the research.

In the Southwest semi-structured interviews were held with a variety of stakeholders.

These included transporters; escorts at the John Holt Beach in Mamfe; transporters at

the Ekondo Titi beach, Bota wharf, and Idenau port; gnetum seller‟s and buyer‟s

managers in Bota wharf and Idenau; the President of Gnetum Transporters Union in

Idenau; the Delegate, nursery attendant and community mobiliser of CENDEP;

Assistant Officer of Forestry and Wildlife Post at Ekok; DED Technical Adviser in

Mamfe; the Coordinator of Manyu Indigenous Spice Processing Ekemco Group

(MISPEG) in Bachuo-Akagbe; the divisional delegate for Forestry and Wildlife

Mamfe, Chief of Post for Forestry and Wildlife Idenau; former Chief of Post for

Forestry and wildlife Idenau; Forestry officer at Bota Wharf; Programme de

Securisation de Recette Forestier (PSRF) officer at Idenau.

In the Mungo division semi-structured interviews were held with village Chiefs, the

Chief of Post for Forestry and Wildlife of Dibombari, the Divisional delegate for

Agriculture and the divisional delegate of Forestry and Wildlife. Some interviews were

audio-taped and recorded.

3.2.3 Analytical procedure

Primary and secondary data obtained from the field was subsequently analysed using

frequencies, single variable analysis, bivariate analysis to multivariate analysis.

As data for 2009 was only collected for 5 months (January to May) in the southwest

and 6 months for Littoral, the results have been divided by the number of months

48

obtained and the data extrapolated to 12 months to obtain a full year. This is based on

the assumption that monthly mean is a sufficient indicator of harvest and adequately

reflects changes in harvests levels and seasons during the year.

3.2.3.1 Data analysis tools

Quantitative data was converted from field measures (bundles, bags, etc) to universal

units such as kilograms (kg) and tonnes and FCFA per kilogram (FCFA/kg) to ease and

harmonise analysis .The universal rate of 1Naira = 2.94 FCFA and 1$ = 500 FCFA

were used to convert Nairas to F CFA and from FCFA to U.S dollars respectively.

Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Excel.

Since these tools needs clear and consistent data to facilitate the data analysis,

questions related to the same topic were grouped and ordered under subheadings to

clarify the questions. SPSS was used to provide an overview of all questionnaires,

perform data analysis and to correlate variables. Charts, figures, tables and graphs were

created in to show correlations in Excel.

3.2.3.2 Profitability Analysis.

The trade margin was calculated with the average prices practiced at each level of the

market chain and the various charges incurred by each actor. The following model were

used: M = S – C. where M = market margin; S = Total sales; C = Total cost of

production.

The market margins for producers, Mp is given by Mp = Sp – Cp where Mp = Market

Margin for producer; Sp = Total sales for producers; Cp = Total cost of production for a

producer.

The market margins for buyers (Mb) is given by Mb = Sb – Cb where Sb = Total sales

from Gnetum spp; Cb = Total cost of product traded.

49

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULT

4.1 Gnetum species

Two species of Gnetum, Gnetum buchholzianum and Gnetum africanum, occur in the

study area (see Plate 1 and 2). The two species are differentiated locally according to

leaf shape, size, colour and yields per vine. Gnetum buchholzianum was indicated to

have a higher yield per vine, with rigid, broad, dark green larger leaves making it easier

to select and slicing and producing a higher quantity after slicing. Gnetum africanum

has light green to yellow/reddish coloured, narrow and elongated leaves.

Plate 1 Gnetum buchholziana leaves

50

Plate 2 Gnetum africanum leaves

4.2 Gnetum actors and market channels

4.2.1 Actors

The main actors identified in the Gnetum chain originating in the Southwest and

Littoral regions of Cameroon include village harvesters known as „producers‟, local

„assemblers‟ (wholesalers or bulkers, also known as buying agents), wholesalers,

exporters, retailers in local markets who buy and slice, household consumers, restaurant

operators and „managers‟ who negotiate purchases in Cameroonian border markets and

Nigerian distribution markets on behalf of Cameroonian exporters and Nigerian traders.

Indirect actors identified include transporters, traditional authorities, labourers (loaders,

off loaders, counters and waterers), local councils and government officials (MinFoF

forestry officials, police, gendarmes, quarantine and PSRF).

Error! Reference source not found.Seven channels exist that links up to seven main

ctors. Producers either sell to retailers who in turn sell to consumers or they sell to

buy‟am sell‟ams who sell to retailers who also sell to consumers and so forth as shown

on table 4.1.

51

Table 4.1: Channels and actors in the Gnetum market chain

Channel Actors in Chain

1 Producers Retailers Consumers

2 Producers Buy‟am Sell‟ams Retailers Consumers

3 Producers Buy‟am-Sell‟ams Exporters Retailers Consumers

4 Producers Buy‟am-Sell‟ams Exporters Importers Retailers Consumers

5 Producers Exporters/Agents Retailers Consumers

6 Producers Exporters/Agents Importers Retailers Consumers

7 Producers Processors Consumers

4.3 Producer sources of household Income

Producers in the study area have varying strategies in generating income. NTFPs

contribute up to 47% of a producer‟s household income, followed very closely by

agriculture. Gnetum constitutes 25% of producer‟s NTFP related income.

Table 4.2: Producers sources of household income

Household modes of income Percent

Harvest and sale of forest products 46.8

Agriculture (including market gardening) 43.6

Trade 3.7

Poaching 1.2

Fishing/trade 1.2

Motorbike rider 0.6

Breeding 0.6

House construction 0.6

Tailoring 0.6

Picking and sale of palm nuts from plantations 0.6

4.3.1 Producer Organisation

93% producers do not belong to any commercial group or organisation in the study

area. All harvesters also indicated that they sell gnetum individually and not as a group.

52

4.4 Traders

The „traders‟, also known as middlepersons, agents and „buy‟am-sell‟ams‟ (the pidgin

term) are those who buy and sell Gnetum leaves. They may travel to production

villages to buy directly from individuals, or buy from representatives or transporters

who have travelled into town to the trader‟s place of business. Traders may sell direct

to retailers, exporters or importers or onto another trader or agent, often performing

storage and a wholesale function by bulking-up the product. Traders often play an

important role in getting gnetum to markets, especially as many harvesters find it

difficult to go leave their production zones due to lack of transport, the costs and long

distances, combined with unwillingness to leave farm and family to transport the

products to markets. They also often act as an informal social network, passing on news

whilst doing business.

40% of buyam sellams supplied direct to retailers, with 60% supplying wholesalers.

65% indicated they have no preference who they sell to, but just over a third indicated

that they do have a preference and supply specific retailers or even make purchases

upon orders. The typical profile of a trader is a married woman with education to

secondary school level. The majority are local women from the SW, with 9% Nigerian

and 5% from the Northwest.

4.5 Managers

Managers are commissioned middlemen who within the Nigerian union system. Each

Nigerian wholesale buyer contracts a manager, who is often Cameroonian who collects

their gnetum and sells to the Nigerian importer at the border markets or further in

Nigeria. The buyers sending money from Nigeria by boat or money transfer agencies to

their managers. Improved telecommunications has had a major impact on ease of doing

business. A commission fee is normally paid per bundle. Although the Nigerian

53

exporter buyer usually specifies the price expected per bundle, some managers may pay

less than the agreed price on the excuse of low prices, especially when there is a surplus

in the market. A manager selects and supervises a team of young men to unload the

trucks, tie, count, water, pack into sacks and loads onto boats or trucks for transport to

Nigeria. A manager earns on average 120,000 FCFA per month plus extra benefits

resulting from price bargaining.

4.6 Retailers

Retailers are those who buy gnetum leaves from buy from „buy‟am-sell‟ams‟ and

„slice‟ to sell directly to consumers. All retailers identified in the study area were

women. The average profile of a retailer is a married woman in her mid thirties with

education up to primary school level. Gnetum constitutes 75% of retailers household

income.

4.7 Processors

They are those whose carry out the transformation of gnetum leaves into other products

for immediate and long term use. The Manyu Indigenous Spice Processing Ekemco

Group (MISPEG) processes gnetum from Bachuo-Akagbe in the Upper Bayang

Subdivision of Manyu. The packaged, dried, processed gnetum is sold in Douala,

Limbe, Buea and Yaounde in Cameroon- as well as exported to the Netherlands,

Belgium, Britain, Germany and the USA at 1000 FCFA for of a 250g bag (equivalent

to 4000 FCFA per kg) with an added value of 150 FCFA per Kg. Taless a small dry

food processing company, also markets a similar product from gnetum sourced mainly

from the Centre and Littoral regions, produced in Yaounde. This is sold for 600 to 650

FCFA per 100g in supermarkets in Yaounde in 2009. The Centre for Nursery

Development and Gnetum Propagation (CENDEP), through its subsidiary Forest House

54

also produces 100g bags of dried gnetum and make an added value of 500 FCFA per

Kg of gnetum.

Plate 3 Processed dried gnetum, CENDEP

4.8 Restaurants

Restaurant operators, often known as „mammy‟, cook and sell Gnetum in a dish

commonly known as „gnetum and water-fufu‟ in the study area, and often also sell a

range of other savoury dishes such as rice, beans, corn, other vegetables, fish and meat.

Restaurants physically range from very simple table and benches in the open air, often

set up to cater to passing customers mealtimes in the afternoons and evenings, to

buildings - often hired rooms or former containers- from which the restaurant operates

on a daily basis. A restaurant operator can be regarded as a small-scale processor. All

of the restaurant operators identified and interviewed were women. A restaurant

operator makes an average profit of 550 FCFA per kilogram of gnetum.

4.9 Exporters

Exporters are those actors in the chain who go as far as other countries, crossing

borders or sell either in small-scale or large-scales at border towns or ports for direct

transportation to neighbouring countries like Nigeria. Some exporters send their

55

product to these countries through friend and relatives to be sold on their behalf. A

typical exporter in Cameroon is married, with a secondary level of education and most

likely to be a female in her mid thirties. Gnetum contributes to 58% of an exporter‟s

household income on average. This income is used to pay for a number of expenses,

predominantly basic needs of food (22%) and children‟s education (26%).

4.10 Nigerian importers and retailers

In Nigeria, the main direct importers actors in the chain in the 3 major gnetum markets

of Oron, Ikom and Calabar include 152 wholesaler/importer/buyers (who buy gnetum

leaves from Cameroonian suppliers in large-scale and sell to Nigerian small-scale

wholesalers and retailers) and retailers (who slice the gnetum leaves and sell directly to

Nigerian consumers. There are also importers in Ikang market. No processing

enterprises were identified. The gnetum trade in Nigeria is entirely conducted through

union associations, who do not permit trade by non-members. The associations follow

the federal system, with each state having its own registered association of gnetum

dealers recognised by the Ministry of Agriculture. Three associations were identified in

the Nigerian markets in the study area: The Association of Afang Dealers (ASOFAD)

of Oron, ASOFAD of Ikom and ASOFAD of Calabar.

4.11 Support actors

Other actors in the gnetum chain include support workers involved in transport and

loading. In Idenau about 150 to 250 young men are employed three times a week with

specialised functions related to the trade and transport. These are usually young men

between 18 and 35 known as „‟loaders‟‟ who load and unload trucks and carts,

„‟stackers‟‟ filling sacks from the gnetum unloaded from trucks and „‟chantiers‟

counters the sacks, and „‟waterers‟‟ who keep the sacks moist. Indirect actors include

those who provide services e.g. knife and cutlass sharpeners, market managers,

56

traditional authorities, police officers, council, gendarmes, quarantine, Ministry of

Commerce, customs officials, Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife officials also play

critical roles in the gnetum chain and interact with the major actors..

Plate 4: Loaders & offloaders, Idenau

4.12 Environmental Sustainability

4.12.1 Change in forest cover

Approximately 97% of the total producer population sampled, responded that the

distance travelled to collect gnetum has increased in the past decade and that distances

currently travelled are further than in the past. About 97% also observed that the forest

area around their village has diminished, and 2.7% had not yet observed any changes..

68% of respondents attributed this reduction of gnetum to forest clearance for

farmlands and 25% attributed it to the creation of palm plantations. In the Mungo

division 7.4% attributed it to logging.

57

Table 4.3: Showing change in forest cover during the last decade

Change in forest cover

during last decade

Response Percent

Based on your observation

from the past ten years has

the forest area around your

village changed? If so how?

Has not changed 2.7

Changed-Diminished 97.3

TOTAL 100

Why has the forest area

around your village changed?

Clearance into farmlands 67.6

Creation of palm plantations 25

Logging 7.4

TOTAL 100

If cover is reduced, what, if

any relationship is there

between reduction cover and

gnetum availability?

Yes. As forest reduces gnetum quantity also

reduces

100

TOTAL 100

4.12.2 Method of Resource Collection

About 43% of respondents pluck stems with leaves from the vine, leaving part of the

vine and using part to tie bundles; and 43.6% fell the trees on which the gnetum vine

climbs to harvest the gnetum which is an unsustainable method of resource collection.

Table 4.4: Method of gnetum collection and sustainability

Method of Resource Collection Percent Sustainability

assessment

Fell the trees on which the gnetum vine climbs to

harvest the gnetum.

44 Highly unsustainable

Pluck stems with leaves from the vine, leaving

part of the vine and using part to tie bundles.

43 Sustainable

Climb trees to harvest gnetum 13 Sustainable

Pluck leaves only from stems on gnetum vine 1 Unsustainable

4.12.3 Domestication

About 16% of the producer population in the study area has planted gnetum and 84%

do not domesticate because amongst other reasons about 73.4% of them do not know

how to domesticate gnetum.

One organisation in the study area - indeed the only one encountered in Cameroon and

Nigeria - that has experience in domestication and is still active in disseminating the

techniques - is the Centre for Nursery Development and Eru Propagation (CENDEP).

58

It was created in 1999 with staff trained by the Limbe Botanic Garden and is located at

Bonadikombo (Mile 4), Limbe. Its main objective is to train village communities and

groups on the domestication of gnetum, with a demonstration farm (see Plate 5 ).

Plate 5: CENDEP Gnetum demonstration farm

4.13 Production

4.13.1 Variation in Production during the past three years

Figure 4.1 shows a large variation in quantities produced between villages and

visualizes how total quantities have decreased each year. For the entire study area, there

was a 9% decrease on 2007 production in 2008 and 41% decrease in 2009.

Figure 4.1: Annual production of Gnetum per village, 2007-2009.

59

4.13.2 Average per capita Production

This average masks differences between the regions (Figure 4.2), with the rate of

decrease slightly higher in the southwest (14% and 46%) than in Littoral (7% and

38%).

Figure 4.2: Average production per harvester (kg) per region 2007-2009

4.14 Quantities Sold, Traded and Exported.

Averagely about 83% of gnetum harvested in both regions is sold, as shown on figure

4.3, with only a small percentage consumed by the harvesters.

The quantities reported as traded in the five main domestic (Type II) markets in the

Southwest, Muea, Limbe, Tiko, Mutengene and Fiango averages 528 tons a year.

Figure 4.3: Distribution of Gnetum produced by producers

60

We notice in Table 9 that Idenau is the main exit point for gnetum in the South-West

with Region with a total of 2639.5 tons of gnetum leaves exported through the Idenau

port alone in 2008.

Table 4.5: Mean quantities of gnetum exported from the South-west region in 2008.

Region Division (exit points) Export

Market

in Nigeria

Mean Quantity Exported per

Exporter in 2008(in tons)

South West Manyu (Ekok) Ikom 17.6

Meme(Ekondo Titi) Ikang 19.2

Fako (Bota) Calabar 16.8

Fako (Idenau) Oron 2639.5

Average Quantity 634.3

4.15 Actors’ profit margins

4.15.1 Producer profit margins

The average selling price by a harvester of a 1 kg bundle of gnetum in the Southwest

and Littoral is 200 FCFA. The average selling price also masks fluctuations over the

year from 50 to 350 FCFA.

Table 4.6: Mean selling price of gnetum per village 2008 Region Village Mean selling price per 1 kg

bundle FCFA 2008

Standard

deviation

Southwest Kembong 236 73

Eyumojock 63 13

Nchang 213 75

Okoyong 208 102

Bache 247 57

Tapkwe 200 52

Ekenge 350 94

Mungo-Ndor 75 28

Ekombe Liongo 417 125

Ekombe Mofako 283 283

Average 229 109

Littoral Souza 175 175

Mbonjo II 175 80

Bonamateke 156 62

Nkapa camp 175 26

Mbanga 125 26

Mojuka 100 0

Average 154 22

Total average 200 95

61

4.15.1.1 Variation in producers annual average profit margin

Due to the variations in selling price, profit and costs between individual harvesters,

profit margins of up to 57% of the selling price appear to be gained.

Figure 4.4: Producers annual average profit variation between 2007 and 2009

4.15.2 Trader profit margins

Traders make an average profit margin 470 FCFA per kg of gnetum and an annual

average profit margin of 729,327 FCFA, but with a wide variation between markets of

±351,780 FCFA, as shown in Table 4.7.

62

Table 4.7: Traders average profit per kg sold and profit per annum

Mean Quantities

and Profits per

annum (FCFA)

Muea Limbe Tiko Mutengene Fiango Average

profit &

standard

deviation

2007 Profit 473,791 536,222 - 1,920,000 1,072,000 1,000,503

±669,221

Profit per kg 395 403 1000 200

500

±347

2008 Profit 650,809 561,333 1,099,200 1,400,900 799,200 902,288

±6345,510

Profit per kg 340 486 1000 571 189

517

±307

2009 Profit 168,754 139,722 579,000 489,143 210,733 317,470

±201,850

Profit per kg 295 495 916 563 191

492

±281

Average

profit per kg 343 462 639 711 193

470

±212

Av. Annual profit

431,118 412,426 839,100 1,270,014 693,978

729,327

±351,780

4.15.3 Exporters Total Profits per Market

Large-scale exporters, exporting to the Oron distribution market, through the Idenau

port make large profits with an annual average profit margin of 481,708,750 FCFA in

2008 from gnetum trade.

Figure 4.5: Exporters total profits per market

63

4.16 Nigerian Markets Buying and Selling Prices

In the 4 Nigerian markets, the average buying price per kg of gnetum in 2008 was 198

FCFA and average selling price is 418 FCFA. These figures however mask large

variations between markets, up to 51 FCFA on the buying price and 150 FCFA on the

selling price, as shown in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6: Buying and Selling prices per Kg of Gnetum across Nigerian Markets

4.17 Average Profit per Nigerian Importer

The average profit for an importer in Nigeria, shown in Figure 4.7 is just over FCFA 3

million annually. Again, large differences are found between markets and over the

period 2007-2009. 2007 was both a high volume and profitable year for exports.

64

Comparison of Average Profit Margins per Kg of eru

between Cameroonian and Nigerian Wholesalers

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Oron Calabar Ekang Ikom

Markets in Nigeria

Ave

rage

pro

fit

mar

gins

/Kg

in F

CFA

Cameroonian Suppliers

Nigerian wholesalers

Figure 4.7: Average profit per Nigerian Importer from 2007-2009

4.18 Comparison of profit margins

4.18.1 Cameroonian and Nigerian Wholesalers

Nigerian wholesalers make higher profit margins than their Cameroonian counterparts

(see figure 4.8)

Figure 4.8: Comparison of Average profit margins per Kg of gnetum between

Cameroonian and Nigerian wholesalers.

4.19 Test of Hypothesis

A comparison of the average profit margins of producers who are members of groups

with those that are not in groups did not show any significant statistical differences (see

Table in Appendix VII). This shows that a difference exists between the two means and

implies that the null hypothesis is rejected that there is no significant difference in the

65

average profit margins of producers belonging to groups and those that are not in

groups.

4.20 Constraints faced by main actors in Cameroon.

4.20.1 Producers

The scarcity of gnetum (23.4%) is a major constraint faced by producers in the study

area followed by low prices compared to the time invested and difficulties involved in

finding and harvesting gnetum (21.1%).

66

Table 4.8: Constraints faced by producers in the gnetum chain

Constraints faced by Producers Percent

Long search because of scarcity 23

Low prices compared to constraints in getting gnetum 21

Hand cuts 21

Long distance 13

Bad farm to market roads 11

Snake bites 10

Total 100

4.20.2 Retailers

Constraints mentioned by retailers include a lack of good storage techniques for

gnetum, and that gnetum is becoming scarcer. In Manyu where there are many sellers

and few buyers, retailers tend to make fewer returns. Retailers in Fako complained that

the price to buy a kilogram of gnetum leaves has increased.

4.20.3 Exporters

Exporters named the major constraints:

1. Unreliable and opportunistic exporters having diversified income streams that

only show up when demand in Nigeria is high to compete with those whom

gnetum export is their sole activity and are steady in the business.

2. As the Naira/FCFA exchange rate fluctuates, this can be unfavorable for

exporters who accompany their products to Nigeria and incur significant losses

or make very little profits because of these fluctuations.

3. Exporters in Manyu and Meme division complained of high transportation costs

due to poor roads. Exporters going to the Ikom market in Nigeria through Ekok

can incur 100% losses if the vehicles transporting the products get stuck when

roads are very bad at the height of the rainy season. due to the perishable nature

of the product.

4. The procedure to acquire commercial permits tends to favor the richer, larger

economic operators and enterprises and requires presence, experience and

67

connections in Yaoundé. Therefore when the enterprises are small and/or

informal, they tend to operate without permits. As a result exporters suffer

harassments and incur more „‟informal taxes‟‟ from government officials

causing them to profit less in the business.

5. A lack of good storage techniques for Gnetum.

6. The Cameroonian traders and buy‟ am sell‟ams indicate that they felt they had

very low price bargaining power with the Nigerian buyers, mainly as they

cannot agree among themselves on a particular selling price.

7. Cameroonian exporters complain that the Nigerians do not permit them to sell

gnetum beyond the border markets of Ikom, Ikang, etc. In contrast, the

Nigerians have access to buy and harvest from Cameroonian villages and

forests.

68

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Discussion

5.1.1 Gnetum Spp. Types produced and marketed in the South West and Littoral

Regions

Both species of Gnetum known in Cameroon, Gnetum buchholzianum and Gnetum

africanum, were positively identified in the study area. Respondents indicated that

Gnetum buchholzianum is found in the primary forest while Gnetum africanum is

found more often in secondary forests. Gnetum buchholzianum was particularly stated

to be the predominant species in Ndian and around Korup. Gnetum africanum was

noted around Meme and Manyu divisions. Gnetum buccholzianum tends to be of better

quality when sourced from primary forest. Poor quality Gnetum buccholzianum and

Gnetum africanum is associated when it is sourced from secondary forest, plantations

or farmlands. This implies that as forest cover is removed and transformed into

secondary bushes, farmlands and plantations, the availability of good quality gnetum

also decreases.

5.1.2 Actors and trade Channels

The main actors identified in the gnetum chain originating in the Southwest and Littoral

regions of Cameroon include village harvesters known as „producers‟ who go to the

forest, sometimes for days in search of gnetum. They sell the gnetum leaves in bundles

of about 1 Kg each to local „assemblers‟ also known as bulkers /buying agents who buy

to supply wholesalers, exporters, retailers in local markets or are sent directly by these

actors. Wholesalers buy from many village harvesters and local assemblers to supply

exporters and retailers, or they export the products themselves to Nigeria. Retailers buy

either from the village harvesters, local assemblers or wholesalers and slice the gnetum

to sell directly to household consumers and restaurant operators who sometimes buy

69

from wholesalers and slice the leaves themselves. „Managers‟ negotiate purchases in

Cameroonian border markets and Nigerian distribution markets on behalf of

Cameroonian exporters and Nigerian traders. Indirect actors identified include

transporters, who transport the product from one level of the chain to another, ranging

from head load through motorbikes, 20 ton trucks to engine boats. Traditional

authorities exercise customary control measures at the level of the villages. Labourers

including loaders, off loaders, counters and waterers at the level of borders. Local

councils and government officials (MinFoF forestry officials, police, gendarmes,

quarantine and PSRF) who carry out regulatory control measures.

5.1.3 Quantity of Gnetum produced, sold and Environmental Sustainability

The majority of gnetum harvested by producers is sold, which indicates the commercial

importance of the gnetum harvest, with only a small percentage consumed by the

harvesters. On average a harvester produces 3.3 tons of gnetum annually – although the

Southwest producers on average produce less (2.5 tons/year ±2.4) than harvesters in

Littoral (3.6 tons/year ±0.9). These averages however mask wide variations between

individual harvesters, particularly in the Southwest. Production between villages also

varies widely, being a function of the number of harvesters, the availability of gnetum

in the proximity of the village and distance to market. Overall, Manyu particularly

Bachuo-akagbe in the South West had the highest production per producer, followed

closely by Mungo division in Littoral. Mungo division and Souza in particular has the

highest gnetum production, also having the most harvesters, being also seen as

abundant in gnetum and constituting the major NTFP harvested in this region. In

Manyu division in contrast, other NTFPs like bush mango and njangsang are also

important that reduces the dependency on gnetum, and gnetum also does not appear as

abundant. Individual producers in Mungo also tend to specialise on gnetum and tend to

70

harvest more bundles of gnetum per day than those in Manyu division. All the

producers interviewed noticed a steady reduction of gnetum harvest from the forest

during the past decade, indicated by a reduction in the total production from 2007 to

2008 of 336 tons. Ndian and Kupe-Manengouba divisions have the lowest production

rates respectively and are also reported as having the lowest gnetum densities and

potential. 16% of the producer population in the study area have planted gnetum and

the majority of harvesters (84%) do not domesticate gnetum. These low levels of

domestication and increasing scarcity as a result of over harvesting and clearance of the

forest to create farmlands and plantations, have implications for the long term supply of

Gnetum in the study area. These rates correspond with data from Takamanda and

Korup (Tajocha 2008; Tanda 2009). There is no definite production period whereby

production rises and falls. Generally, scarcity or abundance in the markets is not a sign

of seasonality but market demand and harvester supply. Gnetum is harvested less

during the rainy season, festive periods and more during the dry season. However there

are variable weeks or months within the year whereby gnetum is scarce or abundant

depending on prevailing conditions of demand, whether pupils/students are on holidays

or in school, when farmers resort to cocoa or bush mango activities or days when they

have church celebrations or other traditional activities and ceremonies, such as

commemorative funeral celebrations. During these periods farmers do not harvest

gnetum. The quantities reported as traded in the five main domestic (Type II) markets

in the Southwest, Muea, Limbe, Tiko, Mutengene and Fiango average 528 tons a year.

The majority of this gnetum is for domestic consumption in the towns and villages in

the proximity of the market. An average of 3500 tons of gnetum passes through Idenau

annually. Despite the smaller or equal number of traders compared to the regional

markets, the volume of trade in the local markets is just a fraction (0.5%) of that traded

71

annually in Idenau. It is important to note that trade through Idenau includes gnetum

from the Southwest and Littoral and from the Centre region. As gnetum from Centre is

not part of the terms of reference for this study, quantities were not tracked. Actors in

the market indicated in personal communications that as quantities available from the

Southwest have reduced over the past decades, the Centre is now the major source to

meet the Nigerian market demand, as well as local demand in Centre region. In

common with Awono et al.‟s (2002) findings, the four main markets in the Centre

region do not sell gnetum from the Southwest and Littoral regions. Data on trade in

Idenau was obtained from „way bills‟ and personal communications. Waybills are the

administrative procedure by which MinFoF tracks Special Forestry Products. They

consist of a form in triplicate which includes: company name; product species;

quantity; vehicle matriculation number; driver‟s name, and place of origin of resource

signed by the MinFoF delegate and signed by the chief of post (of origin), the driver

and later by the chief of post for the market destination. The Bulletin of Special

Forestry Products is attached to the waybill.

5.1.4 Profit and Market Margins of Main Actors

Harvester‟s profits were calculated using their reported annual profits. Gnetum

production and sale is generally profitable to producers – on average producing a profit

of nearly 500,000 FCFA, equivalent to 1,365 FCFA per day. This figure is just over $2

a day recognised UNDP „poverty line‟. As most producers have diversified incomes

and do not rely purely on gnetum, the profits from gnetum trade are important,

contributing on average to one third of their income and serve as a safety net to

producers particularly during low seasons of agricultural output. Harvesters in Bachuo-

Akagbe have a higher profit margin because of a higher production and processing

through MISPEG, which indicates how the combination of domestication and

72

processing add value and profits. There is a wide variation between individual

producers‟ profit margins, with a deviation of 69% in the Southwest and 10% in

Littoral. Producers profits are variable over the last three years and appear to have

fallen slightly in 2009. This may, however, be a result of the lack of a full year‟s data

for 2009 and resulting underestimation and extrapolation. Because of the variations in

selling price by season and per producer it was difficult to compare average selling

price and profit per kg based on the data collected. Due to the variations in selling

price, profit and costs between individual harvesters, profit margins of up to 57% of the

selling price appear to be gained. This can also be explained because producers

normally do not include all or some costs for materials, depreciation of equipment,

transport, and labour in their calculation of profit. Traders in Tiko incur lower costs and

make the highest profits compared to other markets. This is because Tiko has a high

consumer population with a large number of Nigerians. Even fishermen (Elajah and

Ijoh people from Nigeria) living far away in creeks at Nkomboh come to the Tiko

market to buy gnetum, since gnetum is a staple and favourite dish. The gnetum Unions

in Tiko and Mutengene markets ensure sales at a favourable price. Where no gnetum

union exists as in Limbe and the Muea market in Buea prices are lower. Traders in

Kumba (Fiango) have a higher sales volume per month because Fiango market is major

collection and distribution point for sub-divisions producing gnetum (Mungo, Manyu,

Kupe Muanenguba and Ndian), resulting in lower prices in Fiango. It is also in closer

proximity to the major production zones than the other markets. Traders at Kumba buy

directly from producers and middlepersons while those in Fako who are farther away

from producers buy from small-scale and large-scale exporters at a higher price. During

the dry season and festive months of October to February, the market price of gnetum is

higher and starts to fall from February to September. This is attributed to the variety of

73

other vegetables beside gnetum in the markets from February to September, so that

consumers have more choice. This tends to lower the price of gnetum. During the

period October to February, gnetum thrives in the dry season better, becoming both

more abundant, less perishable and is one of the only vegetables available in the

markets. This causes the price of gnetum to rise during this period. Traders of gnetum

tend to sell more bundles per day during this period. Exporters in Manyu exporting

through Ekok to Ikom, Nigeria make lower profit margin per kilogram. Exporters in

Meme exporting to Ikang market, Nigeria spend more money on transport due to bad

roads, longer distance and the need to accompany the product. They also incur formal

and informal taxes and harassments along the way by police officers, forestry officials,

Customs, Council, Commerce and Quarantine. This is because none of the exporters

have permits. Thus their activities are technically illegal. This is confirmed looking at

the 2009 List of Special Forestry Products. Interviews indicated that exporters felt the

procedure for obtaining a commercial permit in Cameroon tends to favour the large-

scale exporters and big companies and disadvantage small-scale exporters. Exporters in

Fako exporting to Calabar through Bota spend less on transport costs as they do not go

all the way to Nigeria, as Nigerian buyers buy the product themselves or through

managers directly from this and Idenau Port. Small-scale exporters at Bota legalise

their export activity by purchasing way bills from the permit holders, but paying prices

above the acquisition cost of the quotas. Traders and processors make more profit

margins per kilogram of gnetum, while producers and exporters make less. However,

traders and processors sell fewer quantities of gnetum per market day. Processors lack

market information on gnetum international markets hence they have fewer market

outlets for their gnetum. Gnetum processing is very beneficial economically, hence

international markets needs to be investigated to maximise the market outlets for

74

processing enterprises. Over all exporters have higher total turnover and profits as they

export higher quantities each market day. Nigerian wholesalers make higher profit

margins than their Cameroonian counterparts. The global value chain reveals a „buyer-

driven’ type of governance at the level of Nigeria because buyers in Nigeria are more

organised than their suppliers in Cameroon and so they have gain control of the market

and determine the price of gnetum at the borders. Also, major constraints identified

here in Cameroon like bad roads, high transportation costs for wholesalers, many

official and unofficial taxes were not identified in Nigeria. The fact that the gnetum

market in Nigeria operates through unions helps to enhance the profit margins of actors

by regulating the market and solving major and minor problems among members.

Unlike the weak and mostly absent associations here in Cameroon the union bonds in

Nigeria are stronger.

5.2 Conclusions

During the period 2007 to 2009, a harvester in the Southwest collected on average

1.12 tons a year of gnetum, ranging from 8.39 tons to 33kg. In Littoral the

harvesters collected on average more, with 3.39 tons per year. The 18 villages

studied harvest on average 143±41 tons a year (averaging 100 tons in the

Southwest and 187 in Littoral).

The five local markets in the Southwest sell on average 582.2 tons of gnetum a

year, estimated from the period 2007 to 2009. The main distribution centre in the

Southwest, and indeed for Cameroonian gnetum destined for the Nigerian market,

is Idenau, with 3500 tons on average marketed annually. The market structure,

channels, and types of actors have however appeared to have changed little. The

main innovation in the market has been increased access to market information

through mobile phones and some increases in the speed of transport by boat to

75

Nigeria. The introduction of gnetum as a Special Forestry Product in 2006 and

associated permits in the period has not affected the quantities exported and

permits for the period. The total quota of permits allocated from 2007 onwards is

insufficient to cover even the quantities sold in just the five South West markets

and Idenau.

Given the larger quantities sold in the markets and reports of traders of their

sources it is clear that gnetum is sourced from a much wider zone than only the

immediate production environs to the markets in the Southwest. This is confirmed

over a decade ago that a proportion of the gnetum leaving the southwest was

sourced from Centre and other regions.

In total some 1885 people were active in the chain annually in the period 2007-

2009. This figure comprises about 759 harvesters in the Southwest and Littoral

regions, and approximately 621 traders and exporters, with a further 505 people

providing services to the gnetum chain across the Southwest and Littoral regions

to the main Nigerian markets. The gnetum trade is a significant contributor to the

incomes for these actors, contributing on average 47% of producer‟s incomes –

with an annual average of 500,000 FCFA; 76% of trader‟s incomes – on average

FCFA 729,327 ± 351,780 and 58% of importers/exporters incomes, on average

FCFA 3 million.. The long term economic value and continued trade is however

questionable. Currently the trade is almost completely dependent upon the

availability of gnetum from the wild, from primary and secondary natural forests

in the Southwest and Littoral region. Only 24% of production is found in the more

accessible farm, private forest and plantations (11%). The gnetum sector is also

very important socially. Income generated from its trade is used by all actors

mainly to meet basic subsistence needs in 90% of cases. The nutritional value of

76

this vegetable is important in meetings basic food needs, however its medicinal

properties are currently little known and little used in the southwest and littoral

regions, unlike the Democratic Republic of Congo and Asia. The environmental

value of this species is that it is a good indicator of undisturbed, primary forest -

many of the areas where it is abundant are also high value forests and protected

areas.

However its economic importance in terms of income and employment is not

translated into socio-economic importance. The gnetum profession has a very low

status in economic or professional terms. Business constraints, although common

to enterprises in Cameroon and Nigeria, appear particularly limiting to the gnetum

chain with the perishable, high regional demand nature of the product -

particularly the poor transport routes and infrastructure, corruption and regulatory

framework. Despite some level of collective action in Cameroon, this tends to be

restricted to geographical markets and to sets of actors (transporters, traders and

exporters). There is no general trade organisation representing the interests of all

actors or the chain as a whole. This translates into a low institutional profile

despite its classification as a „special forestry product‟ and the large number of

individuals, families, small and medium enterprises active in the sector, its role in

providing employment to at least over 600 direct actors in the southwest, littoral

and Nigerian markets. From a social perspective, the trade in gnetum is on average

the major source of income for those active in the chain and their households (on

average an actor has 6 family members). The contribution of gnetum becomes

more as the product gets closer to the end consumer, contributing to 33% of

producer‟s cash incomes and 76% of trader‟s and 58% exporter‟s household

income.

77

5.3 Recommendations

To achieve a win-win situation of sustainable management of gnetum as a predominantly

wild forest resource, and maintain the livelihood of actors in the value chain, the following

recommendations are made.

5.3.1 Increasing production

a) Faced with the increasing demand for gnetum and insufficient control to

manage the resource, domestication is a solution to not only increase

production, but also reduces the pressure exerted on the resource base and

allows farmers to allocate time to other activities. It is strongly recommended

that current domestication research and experiences from Cameroon (e.g.

CENDEP and Limbe Botanic Gardens) as well as the wealth of experience from

Asia, is disseminated and appropriate demonstration and extension activities to

support farmers are put in place.

b) However the most sustainable option is to educate harvesters on the most

sustainable techniques: plucking leaves and not uprooting, tree felling or vine

cutting.

c) Harvesting equipment is currently basic and little adapted to sustainable

harvesting i.e. cutting only leaves). Potential exists to improve sustainable

harvest methods by adapting locally available knives and cutlasses to be more

efficient for gnetum harvesting.

d) The production potential of other regions in Cameroon‟s humid forest zone is

largely unknown. Studies in the Centre, South and East regions indicate that

little is known of the production potential and density of gnetum in these areas.

78

5.3.2 Encourage and strengthen processing enterprises

The higher added value of processing (into a sliced, dried product) and packaging

indicates that this could be a potentially profitable route for small enterprises. Actions

that could benefit this include the dissemination of processing technology, methods and

costs and for new and existing processing enterprises. This would need to be

accompanied by market awareness campaign to inform consumers about dried gnetum

and its uses.

5.3.3 Regulatory and customary control measures

a) Clarification of land tenure arrangements and the overlaps between un-enforced

and largely unknown official land tenure rules and customary rules could

enhance the management and sustainability of the resource.

b) Private owners and village councils have started to assert control over and

restrict access to the resource and to demand payment, mainly in the form of

fees for outsiders exploiting gnetum from what are perceived as village or

private forests. This however should be accompanied by management measures,

such as harvest standards, no-go areas or regeneration measures. Such

customary controls could be one step in a multi-pronged approach to manage

gnetum.

c) The current system of permits issued by Ministry of Forestry should relate to

actual quantities exported as this is not the case, so that the government can gain

potential sources of revenues, and to manage a sustainable trade. The current

permit system regeneration taxes should be channelled into government

supported regeneration projects.

d) There appears to be a disconnection between MinFoF, traders and development

NGOs in the chain on national level, and particularly formally on a regional

79

level. There appears also to be no relation between MinFoF and MINADER on

domestication. A platform of actors in the chain, particularly involving the

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development could be a step forward into

concertedly addressing the issues within the chain.

5.3.4 Market information

The differences between how the market chain functions in Cameroon and Nigeria

indicate that lessons from Nigeria about market organisation and cooperation could be

beneficial for gnetum producers, traders and exporters in Cameroon.

a) A catalogue or database of all actors in the chain could facilitate research,

extension, regulation and control and enforcement of the sector while

monitoring the resource. Whilst cultural attitudes to organisation may challenge

the level of association and collective action possible, this sector could benefit

from the organisation of main actors (producers and traders) into associations.

b) A role could be to encourage the development and use of standard measurement

units through sensitization and dialogue with main actors; organise seminars

and workshops on capacity building in sustainable development and harvesting

techniques; organise practical trainings on domestication for farmers through

service providers etc. This could serve as major steps in advancing the

organisation and improvement of the chain.

5.3.5 Access to markets

The large potential Nigeria consumer market and its proximity to fertile production

areas of Cameroon offer a major potential opportunity for Cameroonian exporters.

However poor infrastructure and costs associated delays, poor roads, taxes and

corruption along the route acts as significant barriers efficient trade. Measures should

be put in place to uplift some or all of these barriers.

80

5.3.6 Knowledge of Resource base

The current system of permits is wholly inappropriate – as it is not based on any

knowledge of the resource base but upon demand from large scale exporters and

retailers, as permits are often resold and subdivided for smaller traders and exporters.

This works contrary to tracing both qualities and the exporter of the product and the

transparency of the administrative system. Combined with the current lack of

comprehensive knowledge about all the sources of gnetum in Cameroon and quantities

available, management and control of the resource in the long term is impossible. An

inventory mapping of production areas would help fill this gap.

81

REFERENCES

Angelsen, A and Wunder, S. (2003): Exploring the forest – poverty link: Key concepts,

Issues and Research Implications. CIFOR occasional paper No. 40. 70pp.

Arnold, M. and Ruiz-Pèrez, M. (2001): “Can non-timber forest products match tropical

forest conservation and development objectives?” Ecological Economics 39:

437 – 447.

Awono, A., Ngono, D. L., Ndoye, O., Tieguhong, J., Eyebe, A. and Mahop, M. T.

(2002). Etude Sur La Commercialisation De Quatre Produits Forestiers Non-

Ligneux Dans La Zone Forestiere Du Cameroun : Gnetum Spp.,

Ricinodendron Heudelotii, Irvingia Spp., PRUNUS AFRICANA. Fao.

Yaounde, FAO: 96.

Awono, A and Manirakiza, D. (2008). Etude de base du Ndo’o (irvingia spp.) dans les

Provinces du Centre, Sud et Littoral Cameroun. CIFOR, Yaounde.

Abia, W., Numfor, F., Wanji, S. and Tcheuntue, F. (2007). "Energy and nutrient

contents of “waterfufu and gnetum”." African Journal of Food Science

October: 016-019.

Asaha, S. and Fru, M. (2005). Socio-economic survey of livelihood activities of the

communities in and around the Mone Forest Reserve and the Mbulu forest

area, SouthwestProvince of Cameroon. A consultancy report for the Wildlife

Conservation Society/Cameroon-Nigeria Transboundary Project

(WCS/CNTP). R. A. P. F. Forests. Limbe, WCS: 59.

Belcher, B. M. (1998): A Production-to-Consumption Systems Approach: Lessons

from the Bamboo and Rattan Sectors in Asia. Incomes from the Forest.

Methods for the development and conservation of forest products for local

communities. Wollenberg, E. and Ingles, A. Bogor, Center for International

Forestry Research.

Belcher, B. and Ruiz-Pèrez, M. (2001): An international comparison of cases of forest

product development: Overview, description and data requirements. Working

paper No. 23, CIFOR, Indonesia. 25pp.

Belcher, B. and Schreckenberg, K. (2007). "Commercialisation of Non-timber Forest

Products: A Reality Check." Development Policy Review 25(3): 355-

377.

Belcher, B. M. (2005): Forest product markets, forests and poverty reduction.

International Forestry Review 7 (2):82 – 89.

Besong, M.T., Samalang, P., Abia, C. (2003). Commercialisation as an Incentive and

Threat for Gnetum spp. (Gnetum) in Cameroon.

BEAC, Banque des Etats de l‟Afrique Centrale.Rapport Annuel 2006.

Belcher, B. and Schrenkenberg, K. (2007): „Commercialization of Non-Timber

Products. A Reality Check‟. Policy Review 25(3): 355-377.

82

Blackmore, P. and Nkefor, J. T. (1998). The Transfer of the Gnetum (Gnetum

africanum, G. buchholzianum) Domestication Model to Village-Based Farmers

on and around Mount Cameroon. L. B. Garden. Limbe: 8.

Bokwe, A. and Ngatoum, D. (1994). Rapport de la mission effectuée autour du Mont-

Cameroun (Province du Sud-Ouest) relatif à la régénération de certaines

espèces des produits forestières secondaires en voie de disparition. Minef.

Cameroon, MINEF.

Campbell, B. M. and Luckert, M., Eds. (2002). Uncovering the hidden harvest:

Valuation methods for woodland and forest resources. UK and USA, Earthscan.

Cavendish, W. (2003). How Do Forests Support, Insure And Improve The Livelihoods

Of The Rural Poor? A Research Note, Center for International Forestry

Research: 23.

Cerutti, P. O., Ingram, V. and Sonwa, D. (2009). Les forêts du Cameroun en 2008. The

Forests of the Congo Basin, State of the Forest 2008. De Wasseige C., Devers

D., Marcken P.et al. Yaounde Congo Basin Forest Partnership. Congo Basin

Forests -State of Forests 2008: 426.

CERUT and AID Environment (1999). The Wealth of Forests in Cameroon. Results of

Field testing methodology for the valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products

(NTFPs) in the North West and Southwest Cameroon.

CIFOR (2008). Gnetum spp (Okok or Gnetum) Fact Sheet. CIFOR. Yaounde, CIFOR:

2

Clark, L.E.; Sunderland, T.C.H (2004). The Key Non-Timber-Forest Products of

Central Africa : State of Knowledge.

Comiskey, J. A., Sunderland, T. C. H. and Sunderland-Groves, J., Eds. (2003).

Takamanda : the biodiversity of an African Rainforest. Washington, DC. ,

Smithsonian Institution.

de Wasseige, C., Devers D., Marcken P., Eba'a Atyi R., N. R. and M. Ph., Eds. (2009).

The Forests of the Congo Basin, State of the Forest 2008. Yaounde, Office

des publications de l'Union Européenne.

Dewi, S. and Ekadinata, A. (2008). Landscape dynamics over time and space from

ecological and livelihoods perspectives. Landscape Mosaics Project. Cifor.

Bogor, CIFOR: 75.

Djeukam, R. (2007) : Le Cadre Législatif et Réglementaire de L'utilisation des Produits

Forestiers Non Ligneux au Cameroun. Renforcement de la sécurité

alimentaire en Afrique Centrale à travers la gestion et l‟utilisation durable des

produits forestiers non ligneux. D. D. T. GCP/RAF/398/GER, FAO- Food

and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 47pp.

Dolgoff A. (1996). Physical Geology. D.C. Heath and Company. Pp 349-350.

Duveiller, G., Defourny, P., Desclée, B. and Mayaux, P. (2008). "Deforestation in

Central Africa: Estimates at regional, national and landscape levels by

advanced processing of systematically-distributed Landsat extracts." Remote

Sensing of Environment

83

Ebamane, S. (2008). Synthese Des Rapports D‟etudes Realisees Dans Le Cadre Du

Projet GCP/RAF/398/GER.. Yaounde, Cameroon, FAO GCP/RAF/398/GER

Renforcement de la sécurité alimentaire en Afrique Centrale à travers la

gestion et l‟utilisation durable des produits forestiers non ligneux: 43.

Ekpe, O. (2007). Effect of a typical rural processing method on the proximate

composition and amino acid profile of bush mango seeds. African Journal of

Food Agriculture, nutrition and development.Vol 7 No1.pp.1-8.

Eyog Matig, O., Ndoye, O., Kengue, J. and Awono, A., Eds. (2006). Les fruitiers

forestiers comestibles du Cameroun, International Plant Genetic Resources

Institute

FAO (2009). Cadre légal et réglementaire régissant l‟exploitation et la

commercialisation des Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux (PFNL) au

Cameroun. Cadre légal et réglementaire régissant l’exploitation et la

commercialisation des Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux (PFNL) au

Cameroun. Fao. Yaounde, FAO-CIFOR-SNV-World Agroforestry Center-

COMIFAC: 4.

FAO (2007): State of the World‟s Forests. Rome, Italy.

FAO (2001): Non – wood forest products in Africa: A Regional and national overview.

303pp.

Fondoun, J. M. and Tiki-Manga, T. (2000). "Farmers indigenous practices for

conserving Garcinia kola and Gnetum africanum in Southern Cameroon."

Agroforestry Systems 48: 289-302.

Fuashi, N. A. (1997). Production and Marketing of NTFP’s in the Korup Project Area

Cameroon, and Cross Border Trade with Nigeria. International Workshop

on the Domestic Market Potential of Non Tree Timber Products (NTFPs).

Eyumojock, Cameroon, Limbe Botanical Garden, Cameroon. .

Groves, J. (2002). Report on the status and distribution of the Cross River gorilla

(Gorilla gorilla diehli) population of the Takamanda and Mone Forest

Reserves and the Mbulu Forest, Southwest Province, Cameroon

Ingram, V., Bongers, G. (2009). Valuation of Non-Timber Forest Product Chains in the

Congo Basin. A Valuation Methodology.

Ingram, V. (2009). The hidden costs and values of NTFP exploitation in the Congo

Basin. World Forestry Congress XIII 2009 Buenos Aires, Argentina, FAO.

Iweala, E.E.J., Uhegbu, F.O. and Obidoa, O. (2009). Biochemical and histological

changes associated with long term consumption of Gnetum africanum

Welw. Leaves in Rats. Asian J. Biochem., 4: 125-132.

Isong, E.S., Adewusi, E., Nkanga, E., Unoh and Offiong, E. (1999). "Nutritional and

phyogeriatological studies of three varieties of Gnetum africanum ('afang')."

Food Chemistry 64: 489-493.

Jensen, A. (2009): Valuation of non-timber forest products value chains. Forest Policy

and Economics 11 : 34-41.

84

Jimmy, N. (2007): Etude sur la potentiel du production de PFNL dans la foret

communautaire de Massens. Memoire FASA Dschang. 67pp.

Jiofack, T., Fokunang, C., Kemeuze, V., Fongnzossie, E., Tsabang, N., Nkuinkeu, R.,

Mapongmetsem, P. M., and Nkongmeneck, B. A. (2008). "Ethnobotany and

phytopharmacopoea of the South-West ethnoecological region of

Cameroon." Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 2 (8): 197-206.

Kaimowitz, D. (2006). Critical Issues for Small-Scale Commercial Forestry. Small and

Medium Enterprise Development and Challenges in Globalising Market.

Copy of NTFP SMFE Proceedings. Forest SME Conference CAITIE.

Kaplinsky, R. and Morris, M. (2000): A Handbook for value chain Research. 113pp.

Keane, J. (2008): A new approach to global value chains.Working paper No. 293. ODI.

23pp.

Kusters, K., Achdiawan, R., Belcher, B. and Ruiz-Pèrez M. (2006): Balancing

Development and Conservation? An Assessment of Livelihood and

Environmental Outcomes of Non Timber Forest Product Trade in Asia,

Africa, and Latin America. Ecology and Society 11(2):20.

Laird, S., Ingram, V., Awono A., Ndoye, O., Sunderland, T., Lisinge, E. and Nkuinkeu,

R. (2009). Bringing together customary and statutory systems: the struggle to

develop a legal and policy framework for NTFPs in Cameroon. Wild Product

Governance:Finding Policies that Work for Non-Timber Forest Products. S.

A. Laird, R. Mclain and R. P. Wynberg. London, Earthscan: 352

Ligondo, P.E., Atanga, W., Tsianhang, D., Fru, M. ; Choh, L. ; Meliko, O.M. (2006). A

Rapid Market Appraisal on Gnetum in the Support Zone of the Korup

National Park. CENDEP Report.

Malleson, R. (2001). "Opportunities and Constraints for 'Community-based' forest

management: findings from the Korup Forest, Southwest Province,

Cameroon." Rural Development Forestry Network.

Markin J. (1982). Marketing.Strategy and Management. 2nd

Edition. Published by John

Wiley and Sons, U.S.A.

Marshal, E. and Schreckenberg, K. (2006b): Commercialization of non-timber forest

products, factors influencing success. Lessons learned from Mexico and

Bolivia and policy implications for decision-makers. UNEP, World

Conservation and Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

Marshal, E.K., Newton, A.C. and Schrenkenberg ( 2003). “Commercialisation of non-

timber forest products: first step in analyzing the factors influencing success”.

International Forestry Review 5(2).

Martin, B., Wayland, G. and Werner, S. (1987): Economics .2nd ed. U.S.A: Houghton

Mifflin Company.

Mdaihli, M., Schmidt-Soltau, K. and Ayeni, J. S. O. (2002). Socioeconomic Baseline

Survey of the Villages in and around the Takamanda Forest Reserve. Profor,

PROFOR: &!+54.

85

Mialoudama, F. (1993). Nutritional and socio-economic value of Gnetum leaves in

Central African forest. In Hladik, C.M. et al., Tropical forests, people and

food: Biocultural interactions and applications to development. Carnforth,

UK: Parthenon Publishing Group. In Shiembo, P.N. (1999). The sustainability

of Gnetum (Gnetum africanum and Gnetum buchholzianum) : Over-exploited

Non-wood Forest Product from the forests of Central Africa.

Mialoundama, F. (1996). Intérêt nutritionnel et socio-économique du genre Gnetum

UNESCO, Paris. In: Ndoye, O. and Awono A. 2007. Regulatory policies and

Gnetum spp.. trade in Cameroon. Forest and livelihood Briefs number 6,

April.

Ndam, N., Nkefor, J. P. and Blackmore, P. (2001). "Domestication of Gnetum

africanum and G. buchholzianum (Gnetaceae), Over-Exploited Wild Forest

Vegetables of the Central African Region." Systematics and Geography of

Plants 71(2): 739-745.

Nchinda, P.V. and Che, M. (2008). Baseline Survey For Gnetum (Gnetum Spp.) Chain

Development In The Support Zone Of The Korup National Park, South West

Province, Cameroon. N. Interchurch Organization for Development

Cooperation (Icco). Limbe, Cameroon, Centre For Nursery Development and

Gnetum Propagation (CENDEP): 37.

Ndoye, O., Pérez, M.R. and Eyebe, A. (1997/98). "The Markets of Non-timber Forest

Products in the Humid Forest Zone of Cameroon." Rural Development

Forestry Network (Network Paper 22c).

Ndoye, O. M. (1997). The markets of Non-timber forest products in the humid forest

zone of Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper No 22c ODI,

London, UK.

Ndoye, O. (1995). The markets for non-timber forest products in the Humid Forest zone

of Cameroon and its borders structure, conduct, performance and policy

implications. Unpublished Report.

Ndoye, O. and Awono, A. (2007). „Regulatory policies and Gnetum spp. trade in

Cameroon‟, Forest Livelihood Briefs, no 6, Center for International Forestry

Research, April

Ndoye, O. and Awono, A. (2009). Regulatory policies and Gnetum spp. trade in

Cameroon. Wild Product Governance: Finding Policies that Work for Non-

Timber Forest Products. S. A. Laird, R. Mclain and R. P. Wynberg. London,

EarthScan: 352

Ngulle A., Njabebuh J., Ngeti M., Obenengu W. and Ewane M. (2007): A Concise

Geography of Meme Division of the South West. In A SWAGT (South

West Association of Geography Teachers Buea, Cameroon) production. Geo

– Journal 1: 1 – 22.

Nkefor, J., W.E., F.J. and N.N. (2003). Gnetum Germplasm collection for genebank

establishment at the Limbe Botanical and Zoological Gardens. L. B. Z. Garden.

Limbe, LBZG.

86

Nkembi, L. and Hoyle, D. (2001). The Non-Timber Forest Products Status In The

Banyang-Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary: A Survey Of Household Use, Options For

Adding Value And Economic Viability. For the WCS Banyang-Mbo Wildlife

Sanctuary Project; The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MINEF)

Cameroon, and the Ministry of Scientific Research (MINREST) , Cameroon. N.

T. W. C. Society. Cameroon, NYZS / THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

SOCIETY: 89.

Nkembi, L.N. (2003). Participatory Forest Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods:

Banyang-Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary. WFC XII, Quebec, Canada, FAO.

Nkwatoh, A.F. (1994). Market trend survey in Non-Timber-Forest-Products in the

Ejagham Forest Reserve and cross border trade in NTFPs. Paper presented at

the Forest Resource Management Component in Mundemba, 1994, 109pp.

Nkwatoh, A.F. (1998). The role of processing and storage in NTFPs market price

determination in the Ejagham Forest Reserve Cameroon. Paper presented at

the International workshop on Non-Wood-Forest-Products at the Limbe

Botanical Garden, Cameroon, 17pp.

Nkwatoh, A.F. (2000). Evaluation of Trade in Non-Timber Forest Products in the

Ejagham Forest Reserve of Southwest Cameroon. Unpublished PhD Thesis.

Nlend V, G. B. (2007). L'exploitation de l'Okok (Gnetum Africanum) par les femmes

au Caméroun : analyse sociologique de l'émergence d'une cueillette de rente et

de ses implications socioéconomiques et environnementales dans la région

forestière de Sa'A. Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines. Institut de

sociologie., Université de Neuchâtel. Mémoire de diplôme universitaire.

Noubissie, E., Chupezi, T.J. and Ndoye, O. (2008). ETUDES SUR LES ASPECTS

SOCIO-ECONOMIQUES Analyse des aspects socio-économiques des

produits forestiers non-ligneux (PFNL) en Afrique Centrale. Synthese Des

Rapports D’etudes Realisees Dans Le Cadre Du Projet Gcp/Raf/398/Ger.

Fao. Yaounde, Cameroon, FAO GCP/RAF/398/GER Renforcement de la

sécurité alimentaire en Afrique Centrale à travers la gestion et l‟utilisation

durable des produits forestiers non ligneux: 43.

Ntsama, G.L. (2008) : Exploitation des PFNL (cas du Prunus africana) et reduction de

la pauvreté en milieu rural. Mémoire présenté et soutenu publiquement en vue

de l‟obtention du : Diplôme d‟Etudes Supérieures Spécialisées DESS / MASTER II

en Analyse et Evaluation de Projets.. Unpublished Master II Thesis.

University of Younde II, Soa. 27pp.

Omualabi, A.C. (1994). Market margins in Non-Timber Forest Products trade in Cross

River State of Nigeria. Working paper No. 12 prepared for the Cross River

Forestry Project Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria.

Orwa, C., Mutua, A., Kindt, R., Jamnadass, R., Anthony, S. (2009). Agroforestree

Database:a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0

(http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sites/treedbs/treedatabases.asp)

87

Oyono, P.R., Biyong, M.B. and Kombo, S. (2009). Les Nouvelles Niches de Droits

Forestiers Communautaires au Cameroun: Effets Cumulatifs sur les Moyens

de Subsistance et Les Formes Locales de Vulnérabilité. RRI Project. Cifor.

Yaoundé, CIFOR: 101.

Pérez, M.R., Ndoye, O. and Eyebe, A. (1999). "Marketing of non-wood forest products

in the humid forest zone of Cameroon." Unasylva 50 (3 Non-wood Forest

Products and Income Generation).

Purnomo, H., Guizol, P. and Muhtaman, D.R. In press (2009): Governing the teak

furniture business: A global value chain system dynamic modelling approach.

Environmental system dynamic modelling & software doi: 10.1016/j.

envsoft.2008.04.012.

Raintree, J. (2005): Improving livelihoods in the uplands of Lao PDR. Produced by

NAFRI, NAFES and NUOL.

Roger A. (1996). Economics. 3rd

. Published by West Publishing Company. U.S.A.

Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. and Wiersum, K.F. (2003). “The importance of non-timber forest

products for forest-based livelihoods: an evolving research

agenda”.GTZ/CIFOR International Conference on Livelihoods and

Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany.

Ruiz-Pèrez, M., Ndoye, O., Eyebe, A. and Puntodewo, A. (2000): Spatial

characterization of non-timber forest products markets in the humid forest

zone of Cameroon. Forest Review 2(2): 71 – 148.

Schippers, R.R. (2004). Gnetum buchholzianum Engl. Wageningen, Netherlands. G. J.

H. D. Grubben, O.A., PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa /

Ressources végétales de l‟Afrique tropicale) .

Schippers, R.R. and Besong, M.T. (2004). Gnetum africanum Welw. . Wageningen,

Netherlands. G. J. H. D. Grubben, O.A., PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical

Africa / Ressources végétales de l‟Afrique tropicale).

Schrekenberg, K., Marshal, E., Newton, A., Velde, D., Rushton, J. and Edouard, F.

(2006): Commercialisation of Non – Timber Forest Products: What

determines success. Forestry Briefing. London: Overseas Development

Institute. 6pp.

Simon, B., Sunderland, T.C.H., and Julius, S.O.A. (2003). Distribution, utilization,

and sustainability of Non-Timber Forest Products from Takamanda Forest

Reserve Cameroon.SI/MAB No 8:155-172.

Shiembo, P., Newton, A. and Leaky, R. (1996). "Vegetative propogation of Gnetum

africanum Welw., a leafy vegetable from West Africa." Journal of

Horticultural Science 71(1): 149-155.

88

Shiembo, P.N. (1995). The sustainability of gnetum (Gnetum africanum and Gnetum

buchholzianum): Over-exploited non-wood forest product from the forests of

Central Africa. International Expert Meeting on Non-Wood Forest Products

in Central Africa. Non-Wood Forest Products in Central Africa; Current

research issues and prospects for conservation development. T. C.

Sunderland, L. E. Clark and P. Vantomme. Limbe, Cameroon, FAO.

Suhardi, (1999). Gnetum gnemon and its prospects in agroforestry. In: Roshetko J M

and Evans D O eds. Domestication of agroforestry trees in Southeast Asia.

Proceedings of a regional workshop held November 4-7, 1997, in Yogyakarta,

Indonesia. Forest, Farm, and Community Tree Research Reports, Special

issue: Taiwan Research Institute and Council of Agriculture Taiwan, Republic

of China, Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA, International

Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya. p 171-174.

Sunderland, T.C.H., Besong, S. and Ayeni, J.S.O. (2003). Distribution, Utilization and

Sustainability of Non-timber Forest Products from Takamanda Forest

Reserve, Cameroon. SI/MAB Series. 8: Chapter 11: 155-172.

Sunderland, T.C.H. and Tchouto, P. (1999). A Participatory Survey and Inventory of

Timber and Non-Timber Forest Products of the Mokoko River Forest

Reserve, SW Province, Cameroon. A report for IR1/CARPE, African Rattan

Research Programme and Mount Cameroon Project: 45.

Tabuna, H. and Tchoundjeu, Z. (2009). Etude d’une stratégie marketing adaptée au

développement du commerce de Fumbua ou Okok (Gnetum africanum) séché

fabriqué par une PME camerounaise pour le marché local et le marché

européen d’ethnic food. XIII Congrès forestier mondial, Buenos Aires,

Argentina, FAO.

Tanda, G. (2009). Domestication of gnetum (Gnetum spp.) in South Western

Cameroon: Case Study of CENDEP’s field based gnetum domestication

intervention. Natural Products of Western and Central Africa: Naturally

African Sub-Regional Consultative Workshop, Nairobi, ICRAF and SNV.

Tajoacha, A. (2008). Market chain analysis of the main NTFPs in the

Takamanda/Mone forest reserves, South West of Cameroon and the Cross

River State of Nigeria. Dschang, Cameroon, University of Dschang. DEA: 96.

Tekwe, C., Ndam, N. and Nkefor J.P. (2003). Gnetum domestication for livelihood

improvement and conservation. World Forestry Congress XII, Quebec City,

Canada, FAO.

Tieguhong, J.C. and Ndoye, O. (2004). Development of trade and marketing of Non-

wood forest products for poverty alleviation in Africa. CIFOR report.

Tieguhong, J.C. and Ndoye, O. (2007). The Impact of Timber Harvesting on the

Availability of Non-Wood Forest Products in the Congo Basin.

Tieguhong, J.C. and Ndoye, O. (2007). Development of Trade and Marketing of Non-

Wood Forest Products for Poverty Alleviation in Africa. A report prepared for

the project, Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest Management in Africa.

89

Tieguhong, J.C., Ndoye, O., Vantomme, P., Zwolinski, J. and Masuch, J. (2009).

"Coping with crisis in Central Africa: enhanced role for non-wood forest

products." Unasylva 233(60): 49-54.

US Soil Survey Staff (1975). The United States Soil Taxonomy Classification.

Vantomme, P. (2003). “Compiling Statistics on Non-Wood Forest Products as Policy

and decision making tools at the national level. International Forestry Review

5(2), 156-160.

Velde, D., Rushton, J., Schreckenberg, K., Marshal, E., Edouard, F., Newton, A., and

Arancibia, E. (2006): Entrepreneurship in value chains of non – timber forest

products. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 725– 741.

Velde, D.W., Marshall, E., Newton, A. and Schrenkenberg, K. (2004): Successful

NTFP commercialization. A quantitative analysis based on household and

trader level Data.UNEP-WCMC and ODI Report. 94pp.

Walter, S. and Mbala, S.M. (2006). Etat Des Lieux Du Secteur „Produits Forestiers

Non Ligneux En Afrique Centrale Et Analyse Des Priorites Politiques. Note

d'Information F. Comifac. Malabo, Guinée Equatoriale, European

Commission (EC) and Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United

Nations (FAO): 34.

Warner, K., Garner, S., Hue, N.T.B. and Trang, T.T.T. (2007). The Role of NTFPs in

Poverty Alleviation and Biodiversity Conservation. The Role of NTFPs in

Poverty Alleviation and Biodiversity Conservation, Ha Noi, Vietnam, IUCN.

Wiersum, K.F., Mirjam, A.F., Tonen, R. (2005-06): The Role of Forests in Poverty

Alleviation: Dealing with multiple Development Goals, North-South policy

Brief. Wageningen University.

Yao, C-S., Lin, M. and Wang, L. (2006). "Isolation and Biomimetic Synthesis of Anti-

inflammatory Stilbenolignans from Gnetum cleistostachyum." Chem. Pharm.

Bull. 54(7): 1053-1057.

Wollenberg, E. and Ingles, A., Eds. (1998). Incomes from the Forest. Methods for the

development and conservation of forest products for local communities.

Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.

90

APPENDIX I

FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE ERU

I- SOCIAL ASPECT

Date :_______________________

District, Sub Division:_____________________

Division: ______________________________

Name of village:_______________________

Number of households :_____________( council)

Main activities of the participants:___________________

Forest Importance and modes of Income

1.Why is the forest important to you?__________________

2. What modes of income exist in the region and how important are they in

percentages?

(for example: timber, teaching, construction, NTFP‟s, etc)

Mode of income Percentage of revenues

3. What are the Forest resources which you find in your eco-system and where do they

come from?

(Distribute stones in line according to the niches where the products come from and

rank according to importance or by distributing percentages)

4. If there exist NTFPs which are only consumed (not yet sold) in your village, please

list them in order of importance for consumption.

Name of the product Month(s) available

1.

2.

3.

15. What is the status of the place where people collect Eru (Please specify)?

1. Protected Area 2. Non-protected Area

1. a Community forest 2.a Open forest

1.b Sacred area 2.b Private land (champ, plantation, home garden)

1.c Sanctuary

1.d communal forest

1.e forest reserve i.e biosphere reserve (with people living in it)

Rank Name

of

Product

Home

garden

Fallow

land

Cocoa,Coffee

farm

Secondary

Forest

Dense

forest

Other

places

(state)

91

1.f forest reserve (without people living in it)

1.g botanic garden

1.h forest concession

1.i Others ______________

11. What are the 5 most important villages regarding Eru in terms of production?

Please rank the villages in decreasing production importance.

Village Important Rank

13. What is the state of the roads during the rainy season? (___)

1. Very good 2. good, 3. Bad, 4. Very bad,

ERU ENVIRONMENTAL

18. Is there much Eru available in or around your village? [___]1=Yes,0= No

b. Has this changed over the last three years? [___]1=Yes0= No

c. If yes, how? [___] 1= decreased, 2 = increased 3= others

(specify):___________________________

19. What techniques of storage for Eru do you use so that Eru can stay good as long as

possible?_____________________________

20. Is eru being domesticated? [___] 1. Yes, . No

Why, Why not? _____________________________________________________

b. What constraints linked to domestication of eru do you face ?_______________

c. Can you give any solutions for the given problems?_______________________

III- ECONOMIC ASPECTS

5. Please state in order of priority, the non-timber forest products which are traded in

your village?

Name of Product Months available

1.

2.

3.

6. Where did you sell most of your products in 2008?

(Distribute stones in line)

Products In the farm In front of

your door

In organised

markets

Rank importance

of income

NTFPs

Fishery products from

forest waters

Agricultural products

Livestock

12. What are the main markets of Eru?_________________________

92

ERU SOCIAL

7. a What percentage of the people is involved in eru exploitation and trade in your

community? [%]_____________________

b. What does the remaining percentage of the people?_________________

c. How are they distributed (in percentage)?

Actors Percentage

of total

Percentage

male

Percentage female

Producers

Traders

Exporters

Those processing

Restaurant operators

8. a Are there any NGO‟s or other organizations in the region which work with eru?

[___] 1. Yes 0. No

b. If yes, list them:

* Village Organisation,ReligiousAssociations, Cooperative, njangis,NGOs, etc.

9.Are there restaurants working with Eru in the region? 1. Yes, .No

b. If yes, estimate the number of restaurants and the average quantity of eru prepared

daily?

Restaurants Average quantity of eru

prepared/day/resto. (kg)

Average No. of days /

week

GENERAL INFORMATION ON ERU

. 10. What are the uses of Eru and their level of importance?

Please rank the uses according to importance;

Uses eru Order of Importance (Rank or percentage)

11.a With whom do you trade mostly? Cameroonians around the villages [___]; Urban

Cameroonians [__]; Nigerians [___]; Others (Specify):___________________

b. Are they mostly men or women ?____________________

c.With whom do you prefer to trade? Cameroonians around the villages[___]; Urban

Cameroonians [__]; Nigerians [___]; Others(Specify):__________________

Why ?______________________

12. Do you have some restrictions as to where you collect eru [___] 1. Yes2. No

b.If yes, Why__________________

17. Do you pay fees/taxes to enter the Forest? [___] 1. Yes,0. No

Name*

Number of

members Status Location

Main Activities Contact

Person Men Women

1

2

3

93

b. If yes : How much? ....................................

c. Do you know why you have to pay? [___] 1. Yes,0. No

Please Explain______________________

13. Are there any communal benefits resulting from eru activity in your area? 1. Yes, 0.

No []

Please specify if yes:________________________________

( for example: Road construction; Council hall activities; Church building;

Construction of schools; Assistance to school pupils/students; etc)

14. What are the three main items which you paid for over the last 12 months with

money earned from Eru?

1.__________________________________________

2. _________________________________________

3.__________________________________________

IV- CONSTRAINTS IN THE ERU FIELD

15. What are the main problems with regard to Eru?

1____________________________________________

2____________________________________________

16. And what would you suggest as solutions?

1.....................................................................................................

2......................................................................................................

17. Any other comments?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

94

APPENDIX II

PRODUCER INVESTIGATION QUESTIONNAIRE ERU

Name and Surname of investigator : _____________________/

Name of respondent : ...............................

I- SOCIAL ASPECTS

General Information

1. Date of interview ___/________/.__________

2. Province : ______________

3. Division : ____________

4. Sub-division : _________

5. Village _________

6. Name and surname of respondent : ____________

7. Tél. : _____________

8. Age _____Sex ____ Male = 1 ; Female = 0

9. Marital situation : _________

Widower (widow) = 2; Bachelor = 3; Married = 4; Divorced

10. Ethnic group : ____________

11. Number of persons living in the household:

Boys [______] ; Girls [______] ; Male[______] ; Female [______]

12. Level of education : [______] 0. Nil, 1. Primary, 2. Secondary, 3. University

13. Position occupying in the community : Chief [____] ; Quarter head [____] ;

Notable[____] ; Community member[____] ; Others(specify)___________

Household Sources of Income

14. Point out your most important sources of income. (List before distributing the

percentages please)

1 = Agriculture (including market gardening)

2 = Breeding

3 = Hunting

4 = beekeeping

5 = Woodcutting

6 = artistic work (weaving, mechanic,bricklaying, carpentry, dressmaking)

7 = Trade

Modes of

income

Period (months)

Jan-Feb-Mar-Apr-May-Jun-Jul-Aug-Sep-Okt-Nov-

Dec

Rank

95

8 = Picking and sale of forest product (pharmacopoeia, vegetable leaves, bush fruits,

etc.)

9= Paid work (specify if seasonal, full time or part time)

15. What are the NTFPs that you collect in your household which are important to

you?____

b. Rank their importance in terms of food and income to you.

NTFP Important as food ( %) Important as income (%)

Access to Forest Resources

16. Are there areas of the forest where you are not allowed to collect from?

1. Yes, . No

b. If yes, what type of area and why?____________________

17. Have you ever paid any fee for entering the forest? 1. Yes, . No

b. If yes,

-To whom?_______________________________

-How much and why?________________________

18. Have there been changes in access/rights to the forest? 1. Yes, . No

b. If yes, explain? _______________________________

Level of involvement of members of household in eru activities, Actual

Consumption and Uses.

19. What is the level of involvement of members of household in eru exploitation

activities and the average time spent in the activities?

Activity

Adults,

Male*

(%)

Adults

Females

(%)

Young

boys

(%)

Young

girls

(%)

Time

spent in

activity

(hr/day)

Total

Harvesting

100

Transportation

100

Selling

100

*NOTE: Consider all persons involved as adult as from 18 years and above

20.Give the distribution of eru produced

Direct household

consumption

(%)

Sold

(%)

Gifts

(%)

Lost

(%)

Total

100

NB. If the eru collected is done in packets (bundles) please convert into kg

21.If eru is the menu of the day, what is the quantity consumed in your household per

day?__

96

22. Is the level of consumption of eru in your household uniform from the beginning of

the year to the end of the year? 1. Yes, 0. No (_____)

b. If no, indicate the different periods and variations

Trend of Consumption Periods

(month)

Number of

times per week

Causes

Start End

High consumption

Average consumption

Low consumption

23. You consume eru with what complement? ______________________

24.If eru becomes rare which are the products you will like to use as substitutes

(replacements)?_____________________

25. List the various uses of eru?________________

Organisational Aspects and Conflict Management

26. Are you a member of any group or association of eru collectors? 1. Yes, 0.No

b. If yes, cite it (Specify the start):________________

c. What are the principal activities conducted in group? _____________

d. Do you take part in meetings/activities? ___________

a=I participate in all meetings/activities

b=I participate in most of the meetings/activities

c=I participate sometimes in meetings/activities

e. If you are not part of any community organisation what are the reasons?________

f. And if you are a member what are the benefits you gain in this situation?

__________

27. Are there communal benefits with the trade of eru? 1. Yes, 0. No

b. If yes, cite them: Schools built [____]; Churches repaired [___]; Roads repaired

[___]; Others (Specify)____________________

28. Have you ever had conflicts related to your eru activity with other persons? [__] 1

=Yes; 0 = No

b. If yes, indicate the reason for each conflict:

1) Conflict: ________________Reason:_____________________

2) Conflict: _________________Reason: ____________________

3)Conflict_____________ ____Reason: ________________

c. How did you resolve the conflict?______________________

d. Have you ever paid for the procedure? [__] 1=Yes, 0=No

e. If yes, what did you pay? [_____________________________]

f. Did every party respect the final decision of the conflict settlement? [___] 1=Yes,

0=No,

Reason: ___________________________________________

97

Household benefits from eru activity

29. During the last 12 months how did you use the money you acquired with the sale of

eru? (Rank the uses according to importance)

Utilisations Rank

Ex. Education, Health, construction materials, Food, utensils, clothes, agricultural

materials, other income generating activities(specify), etc ?

30. How many people in your household benefit from the income generated by eru?

_____

II-ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Forest type and status of harvest area

31. Where do you collect eru more often? Compare the importance

Place collected Weight according to quantity harvested

(%)

Family farm

Fallow family farm

Family secondary forest

Family primary forest

Fallow farm of a third party

Secondary forest of a third party

Primary forest of a third party

Virgin forest without an owner

Other :

Total 100%

NB. We use only that which is applicable to household.

32. What is the status of the place where people collect Eru?

1. Protected Area 2. Non-protected Area

Please specify

1.a Community forest 2.a Open forest

1.b Sacred area 2.b Private forest

1.c Sanctuary 2.c Agroforestry zones

1.d comunal forest

1.e forest reserve i.e biosphere reserve (with people living in it)

1.f forest reserve (without people living in it – fenced)

1.g Botanic gardens

Other/;………………………………

98

Specie type, Characteristics, Collection/harvesting and processing

33. Talking of eru, since when did you start collecting? ________

34. Can you distinguish different types of Eru in your area? 1= Yes, = No

If yes, name and describe the different types you collect in your area and the periods

when they are abundant and less abundant?

Type Characteristics Period Months

1 More abundant

Less abundant

2 More abundant

Less abundant

3

More abundant

Less abundant

35. What are the criteria in order of importance that you will use to determine the

quality of eru?

Criteria Rank

Total

(1. viscosity,2. level of dryness,3. quantity bought, 4. colour, 5. odour, 6. type of

customer, 7. others (state) )

36. Is the level of collection of eru in your village uniform throughout the year?

1. Yes, No

b. If no, fill the table below:

Period

(From the month of…… to

the month of ……)

Level of production/week

(High or Low)

Reasons*

* The reason here could be the factor that influences the increase or decrease in

volume during a period

37.How do you harvest eru (method)? ____________________________

38. If you process eru, how do you go about it?_____________________

b. What is the processing cost and what profit do you incur per unit of measurement?

Cost/Unit _____________________ ;Profit/Unit ___________________

c. Are there other processing methods? 1. Yes, No

d. If yes cite them________________

Materials

39. What materials do you use in the harvesting and or processing of eru?

____________

b. Are the materials locally available? 1. Yes, No

99

c. If yes, could they be locally maintained? 1. Yes, No

d. Are the materials available at affordable prices? Give the price of each equipment

EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL UNIT PRICE

e. Do you know of some materials/equipments which if acquired will help to improve

(in quantity and quality) eru production? [] 1 = Yes; = No

f. If yes, name them? ___________________________________

Transportation facilities, Distances and Costs

40. Is all the eru produced in your household being sold at once on the spot? _______

1. Yes, .No

b. If no, what distance do you cover to go and sell your eru (Evaluate in km-hours)?

Minimum: km_______hr___ ; Maximum : km________hr______

41. Has the distance travelled to collect eru evolved during the periods of the years?

1. Yes, No

b. How? a. smaller b.The same, c. More large

C. What is the actual distance you cover to arrive at the place where you collect eru

(Evaluate in hours and kilometres)?

Hours Km

Minimum

Maximum

42. What transport means do you use during your activities related to eru?

Harvesting of eru leaves [_____]; Selling of eru [_____]

1 = Bicycle; 2=Motorbike; 3=Car; 4=Canoe ; 5=Train ; 6=None ;7=Other (specify)

b. If you pay for the mode of transport what is the cost that you pay?

MODE OF TRANSPORTATION COST Distance(km)

Bicycle

Motorbike

Car

Canoe

Train

By foot

Other

Other

c. Who is doing the transportation; Male [__]; Female [__]

d.Why? ___________________________________

e. What is the maximum cost you would want to pay for the transport? And how far

would you go with that mode of transport?_________________

100

Domestication possibilities

43. Had your household planted eru before? 1. Yes, . No

b. If no, why?______________________

c. If yes, what is the year that your household planted eru for the first time?________

d. What are, in order of priority, the 2 most important reasons that prompted you to

plant eru? __________

a. Trade

b. Consumption

c. Trade and consumption

d. Protection of my farm

e. Marking the right of property (real estate)

f. Scarcity of resource

e. What are the problems that you have encountered in this activity?_________

Change of Forest Cover and Management practices

44. Based on your observations from the last 10 years has the forest area removed

around your village changed? []

a) increased

b) diminished

c) Has not changed

d) Not sure

b. Why?________

c. Can you give us some indicators that confirm your observation?_________

d. In case of reduction, according to you does there exist any relationship between

reduction of the forest cover and the availability of NTFPs (State this relationship

please)________

e. Are you doing something at a personal level that guarantees the availability of the

forest in the long run? If yes, specify: __________

III- ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Market Characteristics

45. What are the principal products that you produce? Please fill the information

regarding these products in the table below over the last two years.

Products Months

produced

Unit of

measurement

Quantity/Rank Profit/Rank

2007

2008

2009

101

46. Can you tell us who bought your eru in 2008?

Buyers (%)

Neighbours for consumption

Neighbours for resale

Traders outside the village

Other :

Other :

Total 100

If there are other buyers, include before the distribution of stones. .

47. How do you sell eru? ___ 1. Individually 2. In groups

48. Does the price of eru vary during the year? 1. Yes, No

If yes, give the information below

Period* Price (unit)

b. Do you have information about price in and performance of other markets? 1. Yes, 0.

No

If yes, which ones? _________________

c. How do you have information about price of the products sold in your village or

elsewhere? 1. Radio, 2. Newspaper, 3. Colleague, 4. Others (specify)____________

d. Do you happen to go and sell in these other markets? 1. Yes, 0. No

e. If yes, what are the advantages and the inconveniences? _________________

f. If no, why not? ______________________

49. With whom do you prefer to trade your eru and why?________________

Support to Activities in the Field/Financial Instruments

50. Have you ever received any form of support or assistance with respect to your eru

activities? 1

Yes, No

b. If yes, indicate the supports that you have acquired in relation to your eru activities?

Type of support By who? Activity Received as

an

individual

or in group

When? Highest

amount/Quantity?

Training

Fertilizers/Agric

chemicals (free)

Fertilizers/Agric

chemicals (on

credit)

Credit

Financing as

subvention

Others :

102

c. If you received money on credit, give the interest rate and explain the modalities of

reimbursement? ______________________________

d. If Fertilizers/Agric chemicals cite them: ________________

e. If not, do you know any government fund where you could solicit individually or in

group to finance your income generating activities?_______1. Yes, No

f. Have you ever solicited any financing in this sense? ______ 1. Yes, No

IV- CONSTRAINTS OF THE ERU FIELD

51. Cite by order of priority the constraints/difficulties you encounter at the different

stages in the field (Please write the constraints, then compare the importance by

distributing stones)

Production Transportation Marketing Conservation

Ex.(a) Long distances to cover, (b) Limited customers, (c) High transportation cost, (d)

Product is very perishable, (e) Troubles from policemen, gendarmes and other forestry

agents, Tools used during collection, etc.

b. Amongst all the constraints cited above, can you indicate the first three?

52. Do you have any other information, question or comment?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

103

APPENDIX III

ERU EXPORTER QUESTIONNAIRE

Name of the investigator: …………

Date of interview: ……………………

I- SOCIAL ASPECTS

Identification

1. Province: ……………………………

2. Division: ……………………………

3. Sub-division:…………………………

4. Name of market:………………………

5. Sex…………… (1.Male, 0. Female)

6. Age …………………

7. Ethnic group ………………………

8. Level of education ………………………

9. Religion …………………………………

10. Matrimonial status ……………………

11. Number of persons living in your household: Boys [__] ; Girls [_ ] ; Men [] ;

Women [ ]

12. Number of persons involved in the trade of eru : Boys [__]; Girls [_] ;Men

[] ;Women [ ]

13. Level of Education: [__] 0 = Nil; 1 = primary;2 = secondary;3 = University

Position occupying in the community : Chief [__] ; Quarter head [__] ; Notable[__] ;

Community member[__] ; Others(specify)_____________

Household Sources of Income 14. Indicate 5 of your most important sources of income ;

Modes of

income

Period (months)

Jan-Feb-Mar-Apr-May-Jun-Jul-Aug-Sep-Oct-

Nov-Dec

Rank

15. How many people in your household benefit from the income generated from eru

_____

Organisational Aspects and profit distribution

16. Do you belong to any union of exporters? 1. Yes, No

b. If yes, for how long are you a member? _______ Years

c. What are the major services rendered by your union? _____

17. Are you a member of other organizations? 1. Yes, No

b. If yes, which ones, ____________

c. Do these organizations play any role in your exporting activities? 1. Yes, No

d. If yes, which ones?

1. Fixing of buying and reselling prices [ ]

2. Saving money to buy when prices are high [ ]

3. Organize in a rotative way collective buying by representatives of the group [ ]

4. Marketing credit and solidarity fund [ ]

5. Settle conflicts among members [ ]

6. Others (specify) [ ]

104

18. Since you started exporting eru, what are the most important things you have

bought or done with the money generated from eru? (The total of possible extensions

should give 100%)

Utilisations %

100

II- ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Price variation

19.Does the price that customer pays vary according to customers? 1. Yes, No

b. If yes, in what situation is the price high? ___________________

c. In what situation is the price low? ___________________

20.Do you have preferences on the providers? 1. Yes, No

b. If yes, from which providers do you prefer to buy? 1. Producer, 2. Harvester, 3.

Wholesaler, 4. Others (specify). Give reasons ____________________

21.In what state do you prefer to buy eru?__________________

22. If you buy eru do you shred them yourself? 1. Yes, No

b. If yes, in what occasions? 1. Command, 2. Bad quality, 3. Others (specify) ____

c. If no, is there any reason? ______________________

I- ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Supplies

23. From whom, where and at what period do you get in supplies? (Why)

Provider Place of

Origin/Village

of product

Period

(month)

Reasons

1. Directly from producers

2. Command from producers

3. Directly from collectors or

producers who comes to the market

4. Command from harvesters who

come and provide the goods in a place

at an agreed time

5. Others

24. What are the criteria in order of importance that you will use to determine the

quality of eru?

Criteria Rank

Total

(1. viscosity,2. level of dryness,3. quantity bought, 4. colour, 5. odour, 6. type of

customer, 7.others (state) )

105

b. According to you does the quality of eru differ from one source region to another?

1. Yes, No

c. If yes, where does the best quality come from? _____________________

Transportation means

25. What modes of transport do you use to transport your eru and how much do you

pay? (Environmental)

Mode of transport Quantity Distance in hr and

km

Cost

Head load

Pay a bus

Pay a bicycle

Pay a motorbike

Hire a van

Hire a lorry

River transport

Others (describe)

II- ECONOMIC ASPECTS

26.During your selling period do you register any significant losses? 1. Yes, No

b. If yes, what is the average percent of your loss (es) as compared to the quantities

bought per month during the season?

(%)_______________

27. Do you have techniques for conserving your goods during selling? 1. Yes, No

b. If yes, which ones? ____________

Financial instruments

28. How do you settle your bills? 1. in cash, 2. Transfer, 3. After selling

29.Do you give loans to your providers? 1. Yes, No

b. When you give loans do you ask for interest? 1. Yes, No

c. If yes, what is the interest rate? _________________

d. If you give loans, do you always get back your money? 1. Yes, No

e. If no, how do you settle the matter? 1. Amicable settlement, 2. In court, 3. Abandon

the matter without consequences on your relationship, 4. Abandon the matter with

breaking of your relationship, 5. Others (specify)_____________

f. What is the system of reimbursement? 1. In instalments, 2. Complete reimbursement

at the production, 3. Others (Specify)________________

30.From time to time do you give advance payments to your providers? 1. Yes, No

b. When you give advance payments do you benefit from any advantage at the buying

time?

1 = Free gift (dash) of the product on the one being bought (…..% of the bought

quantity)

2 = Other gift (Specify)_____________________

Market Characteristics

31. What are the principal products that you export? Please fill the information

regarding these products in the table below over the last two years.

106

Products Months

sold

Unit of

measurement

Quantity/Rank Profit/Rank

2007

2008

2009

32.Talking about eru, in what state do you export? [ ] 1. Plain leaves 2. Shredded

leaves, 3.Both 4. Other (specify) _____________________

33.Apart of the buying price can you indicate to us other costs that you face in your

commercial activity? Please compare their weights!

Cost

s

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n

cost

Corruption in

the product

transfer H

andli

ng

Sto

rage

Right to

a place

in the

market

Other 1

(specify)

Other 2

(specif)

Am

ou

nt/

Qty

34. Does the prices and quantities you export vary according to the period of the year?

1. Yes, 0. No [ ]

UBP = Unit Buying price, USP = Unit selling price,

b.If yes, give the variations:

35.Do you resell your product cash or on credit? [____] 1. Cash, 2. Credit

b. Can you justify your choice? _____________________

36.Do you have information about price in and performance of other international

markets? 1. Yes, 0. No

If yes, which ones? _______________________________

Season Period

(from.

.to…)

Main

buying

place

Average

quantity

bought per

month

( in kg

bag)

Transport

cost

(100kg

bag)

UBP USP Tot.tax

per

month

Number

of

products

sold

Rainy

season

Dry

season

107

37.How do you have information about price of the products sold in your market or

elsewhere? 1. Radio, 2. Newspaper, 3. Colleague, 4. Others (specify)________

b. Do you happen to export to these other markets? 1. Yes, No

c. If yes, what are the advantages and the inconveniences? _______________

d. If No, why not? _________________

38. How did you obtain your starting capital? Amount: _____________FCFA,

Origin _______

Reinvestment Possibilities

39. Have you invested in another activity thanks to the profits made from eru? 1. Yes,

No

40. If yes, what is the greatest amount invested up to this day? __________ for what

investment ____________

Export Information

41. Can you give us information on your eru exportations for this running year?

Dat

e

Mea

ns

of

tran

sport

ati

on

Des

tinat

ion

Quan

tity

Buyin

g

pri

ce

Sel

ling

pri

ce

Costs

Tra

nsp

or

ts

Tax

es

Oth

er

cost

s

42. What are the factors that determine price fixation of eru at the different

destinations?__

43. Do you have any other information, question or comment?__________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

108

APPENDIX IV

TRADER QUESTIONNAIRE

Name of the investigator: ………………………………………

Date of interview: ……………………………………………

Name of respondent : ……………………………………………

I- SOCIAL ASPECTS

Identification

1. Province: ………………………………

2. Division: ……………………………

3. Sub-division: ………………………………

4. Name of market: ………………………

5. Sex……………… (1. Male, 0. Female)

6. Age ……………………………………………

7. Ethnic group ……………………………………

8. Level of education …………………………

9. Religion …………………………………………

10. Matrimonial status ……………………………

11. Number of persons living in your household: Boys [____] ; Girls [___] ; Men [] ;

Women [ ]

12. Number of persons involved in the trade of eru : Boys [__] ; Girls [__] ; Men [] ;

Women [ ]

13. Level of Education: [___] 0 = Nil; 1 = primary;2 = secondary;3 = University

Position occupying in the community : Chief [___] ; Quarter head [___] ;

Notable[___] ; Communitymember[___] ; Others(specify)____________

Household Sources of Income 14. Indicate 5 of your most important sources of income ;

Modes of income Period (months)

Jan-Feb-Mar-Apr-May-Jun-Jul-Aug-

Sep-Okt-Nov-Dec

Rank

15. How many people in your household benefit from the income generated from

eru ?____

Organisational Aspects and profit distribution

16.Do you belong to any union of traders? 1. Yes, . No

b. If yes, for how long are you a member? _______ Years

c. What are the major services rendered by your union? ______________

17.Are you a member of other organizations? 1. Yes, . No

b. If yes, which ones, __________________

c. Do these organizations play any role in your trading activities? 1. Yes, . No

d. If yes, which ones?______________

1. Fixing of buying and reselling prices []

2. Saving money to buy when prices are high []

3. Organize in a rotative way collective buying by representatives of the group []

4. Marketing credit and solidarity fund []

5. Settle conflicts among members []

6. Others (specify) []

109

18. Since you started trading in eru, what are the most important things you have

bought or done with the money generated from eru? (The total of possible extensions

should give 100%)

Utilisations %

100

II- ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Supplies

19. From whom, where and at what period do you get in supplies? (Why)

Provider Place of

Origin/Village

of product

Period

(month)

Reasons

1. Directly from producers

2. Command from producers

3. Directly from collectors or

producers who comes to the market

4. Command from harvesters who

come and provide the goods in a place

at an agreed time

5. Others

20. What are the criteria in order of importance that you will use to determine the

quality of eru?

Criteria Rank

Total

(1. viscosity,2. level of dryness,3. quantity bought, 4. colour, 5.

ordour, 6. type of customer, 7. others (state) )

b. According to you, do you think the quality of eru can be different from one source to

another (region)? 1. Yes, . No

c. If yes, where does the best quality come from?

Transportation means

21. What modes of transport do you use to transport your eru and how much do you

pay?

Mode of transport Quantity Distance in hr and

km

Cost

Head load

Pay a bus

Pay a bicycle

Pay a motorbike

Hire a van

Hire a lorry

River transport

Others (describe)

110

III- ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Price variation

22. Does the price that the customer pays vary from one customer to another? 1. Yes,

. No

b. If yes, in what situation is the price high? __________

c. In what situation is the price low? ___________________

23. Do you have preferences on the providers?1. Yes, . No

b. If yes, from which provider do you like to buy? 1. Producer, 2. Harvester, 3.

Wholesaler. 4. Others (specify). Give reasons_____________________

24 In what state do you like to buy eru? 1. Give reasons_______________

25.If you buy eru leaves do you slice it yourself? 1. Yes, . No

b. If yes, in what occasions? 1. Command, 2. Perishability of the leaves, 3. To add more

value 4. Others (specify)____________________

c. What is the added value per unit of measurement?

Buying price per bundle: ______________; Added value of sliced bundle sold: ____

d. If no, do you have a reason?_________________________________

26.During your selling period do you register any significant losses? 1. Yes, . No

b. If yes how? ____________________

c. What is the average percent of your loss (es) as compared to the quantities bought

per month during the season? (%)_____________________________________

27.Do you have techniques for conserving your goods during selling? 1. Yes, . No

b. If yes, which ones?______________________________

28. How do you settle your bills? 1. Cash, 2. Transfer, 3. After selling

Justify your choice?______________________________

29.Do you give loans to your providers? 1. Yes, . No

b. When you give loans do you ask for interest? 1. Yes, . No

c. If yes, what is the interest rate? _________________________

d. If you give loans, do you always get back your money? 1. Yes, . No

e. If no, how do you settle the matter? 1. Amicable settlement, 2. In court, 3. Abandon

the matter without consequences on your relationship, 4. Abandon the matter with

breaking of your relationship, 5. Others

(specify)________________________________

f. What is the system of reimbursement? 1. In instalments, 2. Complete reimbursement

at the production, 3. Others (Specify)______________________

g. From time to time do you give advance payments to your providers? 1. Yes, . No

h. When you give advance payments do you benefit from any advantage at the buying

time?

1 = Free gift (dash) of the product on the one being bought (………% of the bought

quantity)

2 = other gift (Specify)______________________

111

Market Characteristics

30. What are the principal products that you sell? Please fill the information regarding

these products in the table below over the last two years.

Products Months

sold

Unit of

measurement

Price/Unit Quantity/

Rank

Profit/

Rank

2007

2008

2009

31.In what state do you sell eru? 1. Plain leaves 2. Shredded leaves, 3.Both 4. Other

(specify) ____

32.Apart of the buying price can you indicate to us other costs that you face in your

commercial activity? Please compare their weights!

Costs Transporta

tion cost

Corruptio

n in the

product

transfer Han

dli

ng

Sto

rage

Rig

ht to

a

pla

ce i

n

the

mar

ket

Oth

er 1

(spec

ify

)

Oth

er 2

(spec

ify

)

Amount/

Qty

33. Does the prices and quantities you sell vary according to the period of the year? 1.

Yes, . No

b. If yes, give the variations

Season Period

(from.

.to…)

Main

buying

place(s)

Average

quantity

bought per

month

( in kg

bag)

Transport

cost

(100kg bag)

UB

P

US

P

Tot.

Tax

per

month

Number

of

product

s sold

Rainy

season

Dry

season

UBP = Unit buying price; USP = Unit selling price

34. Do you resell your product cash or on credit? [____] 1. Cash, 2. Credit

b. Why?___________________________

35. Do you have information about price in and performance of other markets? 1. Yes,

0. No

If yes, which ones? ____________________

112

36. How do you have information about price of the products sold in your market or

elsewhere? 1. Radio, 2.Newspaper, 3. Colleague, 4. Others

(specify)______________________________

b. Do you happen to go and sell in these other markets? 1. Yes, . No

c. If yes, what are the advantages and the inconveniences? __________________

d. If no, why not? ________________________

37. How did you obtain your starting capital? Amount: _____________FCFA,

Origin ____________________________

Reinvestment Possibilities

38.Have you invested in another activity thanks to the profits made from eru? 1. Yes, 0.

No

39.If yes, what is the greatest amount invested up to this day? __________ for what

investment __________________

40. Do you have any other information, question or comment?_________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

113

APPENDIX V

RESTAURANT QUESTIONNAIRE

Name of the investigator: …………………………………

I- SOCIAL ASPECTS

Identification

1. Province: …………………………………………………

2. Division: ……………………………………………………

3. Sub-division: ………………………………………………

4. Name of village: ……………………………………………

5. Date of interview: ……………………………………………

6. Sex ……………………………………………………… (1. Male,0. Female)

7. Age …………………………………………………………………

8. Seniority in cooking eru ……………………………………………

9. Ethnic group ……………………

10. Level of education ………………………………………………

11. Religion ………………………………………………………

12. Matrimonial status ……………………………………………………

13. Number of people in charge: ………………. Including ……………..Children

14. Since you started selling eru, what are the most important things you have bought

or done with the money generated from eru? (The total of possible extensions should

give 100%)

Utilisations %

100

II- ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Marketing 15. Buying eru and cooking

Buying

place

Period

(Month in

interval)

Number

of

Bundles

per day

Buying

price

per

bundle

Number

of

Plates

obtained

Price

of

a plate

Average

No.

of days

per week

16. Ingredients and products used in the preparation of Eru?

Products/ Ingredients Quantity used / day Estimated price

(Ex. Palm oil, meat, Canda, pepper, onions, maggi, etc….)

17. Do you sell all of the eru that you cook? 1. Yes, . No

b. If no, please estimate the quantity that remains (in %) _________________

c. What do you do with the left over? 1. We consume it at home, 2. I preserve to sell the

following day, 3. Other (specify)_____________________________________

114

18. With what complements do you serve eru with?______________________

19. If you were to sell the vegetable source alone without the complement, for how

much will you sell a plate/bowl of eru?

__________________________________________

20. Do you sell other dishes in your restaurant? 1. Yes, . No

b. If yes, how important is eru compared to them?

Dishes Quantity sold/day (%) Income generated (%)

Eru

21. Give the places where you buy your eru from and percent quantity of eru coming

from each place?

Places bought Quantity (%)

22. Do you always find the quantity of eru you need to cook? 1. Yes, . No

b. If no, is there any period of the year during which you don‟t sell eru at

all?________________________

c. Can you give the reason?

115

ANNEX VI

CALIBRATION AND MEASUREMENT UNITS

Calibration of field units of measurement for Gnetum.

Field unit Local equivalent Metric

equivalent

Metric

unit

Bundle (Cameroon, Calabar,

Ikang)

12 heaps 1 kg

Bundle (Ikom) 0.75 kg

Bundle (Oron) 5 Cameroon bundles 5 kg

Flour sack 100 bundles 100 kg

Bag (Calabar) 120 bundles 120 kg

Bag (Ikang) 200 bundles 200 kg

Bag (Ikom) 150 bundles 150 kg

Bag (Idenau) 500-600 bundles 500-600 kg

Bag 5 large bundles of 125

bundles

125 kg

Boat 2 to 3 bags 1500 to 2250 kg

“20 ton” Lorry 10,000 to 12,000 bundles 10-12 tons

APPENDIX VII

Statistical Table: Profit and group membership Are you a member of

any group or

association of eru

collectors?

N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Profit from eru in

2008 (FCFA)

No 34 592392 556148 95379

Yes 5 321024 158529 70896

Independent Sample Test

Profit in

2008

FCFA

Levene’s

Test for

Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig.2-

tailed

Mean

Diff.

Std.

Error

Diff.

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Equal

variances

Assumed

1.48 .23 1.0 37 0.29 271367 252803 -240860 783595

Equal

variances

Not

assumed

2.2 22 0.03 271367 118841 25287 517447

116

ANNEX VIII

NTFP NAMES

Local and Scientific names of NTFPs

English

name

Local name Scientific name

Mushroom Essok Several species

Bitter Cola Bassa : wè ; Boulou : onié ; Douala :

ebongagnagne ; Ejagham : ejare, nya ;

Ewondo : onié ; Ibo : adi ;

Pygmée Baka : ngbwel.

Garcinia kola Heckel

Cola Cola, Cola nut Cola nitida

Eru Eru (Efik); eru (Ibibio); ukasi (Igbo);

ikokoh, (Ovande); gelu (Anyang); ecole

(Boki)

Gnetum africanum and

Gnetum buchholzianum

Bush mango Bush mango (vern.); ogbono (Igbo);

bojep

(Boki); eloweh (Ovande); kelua

(Basho); gluea

(Anyang)

Irvingia gabonensis and

I. wombolu

Njangsang Njansang (vern.); ngoku (Basho); itche

(Becheve); ngoge (Boki); ngongeh

(Anyang)

Ricinodendron heudelottii

Bush Onion Felou (Basho); elonge (Becheve);

eloweh

(Ovande); elu (Anyang)

Afrostyrax kamerunensis

Bush Pepper Kakwale (Ovande); iyeyeh (Becheve);

ashoesie (Boki); taquale (Basho);

acachat (Anyang)

Piper guineensis

Bush meat Many species of duikers,

antelopes, monkeys, wild

pigs, rats, snakes,

porcupines, cane rats etc.

Cassa mango

Hot leaf

(Ntanchot)

Eboya

Faux

muscadier

Douala : pebé ; Ewondo : ding ;

Pygmée Baka : dengo. Bakoko : gangat

; Bassa : ikoma; Baya : biko ; Boulou :

ozek

Monodora myristica

(Graertm.) Dunal

Monkey Cola Monkey Cola Cola pachycarpa K.

Schum.

Snails Several species

Sources: (Eyog Matig et al. 2006; Sunderland et al. 2003; Sunderland et al. 1999)

117

APPENDIX IX: Sampled villages in Cameroon

Littoral Mungo Dibombari Nkapa camp E 30 16 4 25 13

Bonamateke D 18 16 4 25 22

Bonalea Souza E 200 28 7 25 4

Mbonjo II D 30 20 5 25 17

Mbanga Mbanga E 50 20 5 25 10

Mojuka D 45 16 4 25 9

1 3 6 D=50% E=50% 373 116 29 25 8

Total 2 9 18 D=50% E=50% 759 312 76 25 10

Region Division Sub-division Village Access

D- Difficult

E= easy

Estimated

producer

population

Estimated

number

present

Number interviewed

(F= Female M=

Male)

Percentage

interviewed of

those present

Proportion

population

Interviewed

Southwest Manyu Akwaya Bache E 30 16 4 3F+1M 25 13

Tapkwe D 20 20 5 4F+1M 25 25

Mamfe Central Nchang D 42 24 6 5F+1M 25 14

Okoyong Native E 25 12 3 2F+1M 25 12

Eyumojock Kembong E 70 32 8 8F+0M 25 11

Eyumojock D 40 20 5 4F+1M 25 12

Upper Bayang Bachuo-akagbe E 45 16 4 3F+1M 25 9

Etoko D 40 16 41F+3M 25 10

Kupe-

Muanenguba

Nguti Ekenge E 25 12 32F+1M 25 12

Moungo-Ndor D 14 8 22F+0M 25 14

Ndian Bamusso Ekombe Liongo E 20 12 3 3F+0M 25 15

Mofako D 15 8 2 2F+0M 25 13

3 6 12

D=50%

E=50% 386 196 47 25 13

118

APPENDIX X: Markets and restaurants sampled

Country Region/

State

Division

/LGA*

Market Market

typeA

Actor

TypeB

Est.

Number of

actors

Number

actors present

Number

interviewed

% interviewed

/ present

% population

interviewed

Nigeria Akwa

Ibom

Oron Oron IV, III 1,2,3 42 16 4 25 13

Cross

River

Calabar Watt market,

Calabar

III 1,2,3 30 16 4 25 13

Cross

River

Ikom Ikom III 1,2,3 80 20 5 25 6

Cross

River

Ikang* Ikang III 1,2,3

?

Sub total 4 3 141 52 13 25 9

Cameroo

n

Centre Mfoundi

#

Mfoundi, Yaounde III 1 40 4

Mokolo, Yaounde III 1 50 3

Central, Yaounde III 1 70 3

Essos, Yaounde III 1 35 3

Sub total 1 4 12

Littoral Mungo Souza II 3

Southwes

t

Manyu Mamfe II 2 40 24 6 15 15

Eyumojock II 2 12 12 3 25 25

Kembong II 2 4 4 1 25 25

Meme Fiango, Kumba II 1 40 24 6 15 15

Fiango, Kumba II 4, 3 60 16 4 7 7

Nguti II 2 4 4 1 25 25

Ayaoke II 1 1 1 1 100 100

Kumba-Ekang II 2 50 8 2 4 4

Fako Mutengene II 1 28 28 7 25 25

Tiko II, IV 1 28 28 7 25 25

Muea II 1 100 36 9 9 9

Limbe II 1 70 32 8 11 11

119

*Agents (Idenau/Limbe to

Nigeria) IV 2 28 25 6 18 21

*SW buyam-sellams II 1,2 15 5 5 5 33

3 18 480 247 66 22 14

Total 5 25 621 299 91 16 15 A: See classification in Sections 4.1 and Section 11.1.1 B:1-retailers, 2- exporters/importers, 3-suppliers, 4-restaurant operators * Local Government Area # Estimates from Ndoye

1997 & Perez et al 1999* Market not visited, data provided by agents/exporter/importers